Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Tindak pidana penipuan investasi di dalam putusan pengadilan nanda maqhfirah* mohd. din** teuku ahmad yani*** abstrak penipuan investasi adalah suatu perbuatan tindak pidana atau kegiatan investasi (penanaman modal) yang tidak terlaksana dengan semestinya, atau dengan kata lain penawar investasi telah melakukan perbuatan menipu. terdapat 3 (tiga) kasus tindak pidana penipuan investasi yang diputuskan secara berbeda. perbedaan bukan hanya terletak pada 3 kasus tindak pidana penipuan investasi, melainkan adanya perbedaan penjatuhan hukuman yang diberikan oleh hakim pada tingkatan peradilan, mulai dari pengadilan negeri, pengadilan tinggi dan mahkamah agung. pada kasus pertama, pengadilan negeri memutuskan terdakwa lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum, sedangkan pada tingkat kasasi di mahkamah agung diputuskan bersalah. pada kasus kedua, pengadilan negeri memutuskan terdakwa bersalah sedangkan pada tingkat banding di pengadilan tinggi diputuskan lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum namun pada tingkat kasasi di mahkamah agung kembali diputuskan bersalah. pada kasus ketiga, pengadilan negeri dan pengadilan tinggi memutuskan terdakwa bersalah sedangkan pada tingkat kasasi di mahkamah agung diputuskan bebas. adanya perbedaan penjatuhan hukuman pada tingkatan peradilan terhadap tindak pidana yang sama yaitu tindak pidana penipuan investasi menunjukkan adanya inkonsistensi putusan hukum yang diberikan oleh hakim, sehingga perbedaan putusan tersebut dapat mengakibatkan adanya ketidakpastian hukum. penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pertimbangan hukum hakim menjatuhkan putusan yang berbeda pada tindak pidana penipuan investasi dan untuk mengetahui perbuatan penipuan investasi idealnya dapat dihukum atau tidak dapat dihukum berdasarkan ketentuan hukum yang berlaku. penulisan tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. pendekatan ini lebih mengkaji hukum sebagai norma yang diterapkan dalam masyarakat. data yang diperoleh dalam penelitian ini melalui pengumpulan data yang dilakukan dengan mengkaji dan mengolah secara sistematis bahan-bahan kepustakaan serta dokumen-dokumen yang berkaitan dengan penelitian. *mahasiswa **ketua komisi pembimbing ***anggota komisi pembimbing hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pertimbangan hukum hakim menjatuhkan putusan yang berbeda pada tindak pidana penipuan investasi disebabkan oleh pertimbangan hakim dari sisi yuridis, pada kasus pertama, di pengadilan negeri dengan putusan nomor 269/pid.sus/2021/pn.bna memutuskan terdakwa lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim terhadap keterangan terdakwa dan keterangan saksi dimana hakim menemukan tidak adanya ikatan perjanjian secara tertulis dan menilai bahwa perbuatannya murni hubungan bisnis maka perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh terdakwa merupakan hubungan hukum perdata yakni hubungan hukum ikatan bisnis murni bukan ranah pidana, sedangkan di tingkat kasasi dengan putusan nomor 456 k/pid/2022 memutuskan terdakwa bersalah berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim terhadap keterangan saksi ahli dimana hakim menemukan adanya unsur penipuan dan pencucian uang. pada putusan tingkat pertama hakim hanya mempertimbangkan keterangan terdakwa dan keterangan saksi namun tidak mempertimbangkan keterangan ahli, sedangkan pada putusan tingkat kasasi hakim mempertimbangkan keterangan ahli. pada kasus kedua, di pengadilan negeri dengan putusan nomor 213/pid.b/2016/pn.mjl memutuskan terdakwa bersalah berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim terhadap keterangan terdakwa dan alat bukti surat dimana terdakwa mengakui perbuatannya dan diperkuat dengan adanya surat berupa kwintasi dari transaksi, namun di tingkat banding dengan putusan nomor 41/pid/2017/pt.bdg memutuskan terdakwa lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim terhadap keterangan terdakwa dan keterangan saksi dimana hakim menemukan adanya unsur perjanjian, sedangkan di tingkat kasasi dengan putusan nomor 699 k/pid/2017 memutuskan terdakwa bersalah berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim terhadap keterangan saksi dimana hakim menemukan adanya unsur penipuan. pada kasus ketiga, di pengadilan negeri dengan putusan nomor 1091/pid.sus/2018/pn.jkt.utr dan di tingkat banding dengan putusan nomor 224/pid.sus/2019/pt.dki memutuskan terdakwa bersalah berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim terhadap keterangan saksi dan keterangan ahli yang menunjukkan perbuatan tersebut telah memenuhi unsur tindak pidana penipuan dan pencucian uang, sedangkan di tingkat kasasi dengan putusan nomor 4374 k/pid.sus/2019 memutuskan terdakwa dibebaskan berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim terhadap keterangan terdakwa dengan menilai tidak adanya sinkronisasi keterangan saksi pelapor dengan pernyataan penuntut umum terkait tempat terjadinya tindak pidana (locus delicti). perbuatan penipuan investasi idealnya dapat dihukum karena telah memenuhi unsur-unsur tindak pidana berupa unsur subjektif dan objektif yaitu adanya subjek (perbuatan manusia), adanya mens rea, adanya kesalahan, perbuatan bersifat melawan hukum serta perbuatan dilarang oleh undang-undang dan diancam pidana. berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, pelaku tindak pidana penipuan investasi dapat dihukum dengan menggunakan peraturan perundang-undangan yang ada, seperti tindak pidana penipuan yang diatur dalam kitab undang-undang hukum pidana (kuhp), undang-undang nomor 8 tahun 2010 tentang pencegahan dan pemberantasan tindak pidana pencucian uang, undang-undang nomor 10 tahun 1998 tentang perbankan dan undang-undang nomor 7 tahun 2014 tentang perdagangan. menyarankan kepada hakim mahkamah agung agar lebih memperhatikan keseragaman dalam memutuskan hukuman terhadap pelaku tindak pidana penipuan investasi, mengingat lembaga mahkamah agung merupakan lembaga yang memiliki kewibawaan, sehingga perlu menghindari adanya suatu putusan yang saling bertentangan dan sangat dibutuhkan adanya konsistensi dalam menjatuhkan putusan. diperlukan pengaturan secara khusus terhadap tindak pidana penipuan investasi, perumusan aturan secara khusus juga memberikan kemudahan terhadap aparat penegak hukum dalam memberikan sanksi pidana sehingga hakim dalam menjatuhkan pidana bagi pelaku penipuan investasi memiliki persamaan, adanya aturan secara khusus terhadap tindak pidana penipuan investasi dapat memberikan kepastian hukum dan perlindungan hukum bagi masyarakat. kata kunci: penipuan investasi; sanksi pidana; pertimbangan hakim

CRIMINAL ACT OF INVESTMENT FRAUD IN COURT DECISIONS Nanda Maqhfirah * ** Mohd. Din Teuku Ahmad Yani *** ABSTRACT Investment fraud is an act of crime or investment activity (investment) that is not carried out properly, or in other words, the investment bidder has committed a fraudulent act. There were 3 (three) cases of the criminal act of investment fraud that were decided differently. The difference lies not only in the 3 cases of criminal investment fraud but also in the differences in the sentences given by judges at the judicial level, starting from the District Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. In the first case, the District Court ruled that the defendant was acquitted of all charges, while at the cassation level the Supreme Court was found guilty. In the second case, the District Court found the defendant guilty while at the Appellate level at the High Court it was decided that he was acquitted of all lawsuits but at the Cassation level at the Supreme Court again he was found guilty. In the third case, the District Court and the High Court found the defendant guilty while at the cassation level the Supreme Court acquitted him. The existence of differences in sentencing at the judicial level for criminal acts of investment fraud indicates an inconsistency in the legal decisions given by judges, so that these differences in decisions can result in legal uncertainty. This study aims to find out the legal considerations of judges making different decisions on investment fraud crimes and to find out whether investment fraud can ideally be punished or not punished based on applicable legal provisions. Writing this thesis using the normative juridical research method. This approach examines law as a norm applied in society. The data obtained in this study through data collection was carried out by systematically reviewing and processing library materials and documents related to research. The results of the study indicate that the judge's legal considerations made a different decision on the crime of investment fraud due to the judge's considerations from a juridical perspective, in the first case, in the District Court with Decision Number 269/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Bna deciding the defendant acquitted of all lawsuit based on the judge's consideration of the defendant's statement and the witness's statement where the judge found there was no written agreement and considered that his actions were purely a business relationship, so the actions committed by the defendant were a civil legal relationship with Decision Number 456 K/Pid/2022 deciding the defendant guilty based on the judge's consideration of the testimony of the expert witness where the judge found elements of fraud and money laundering. At the first instance decision the judge only considers the testimony of the accused and witness testimony but does not consider expert testimony, while at the cassation level decision the judge considers expert testimony. In the second case, at the District Court with Decision Number 213/Pid.B/2016/PN.Mjl decided the defendant was guilty based on the judge's consideration of the defendant's statement and documentary evidence where the defendant admitted his actions and was reinforced by a letter in the form of a receipt from the transaction, but in at the appeal level with Decision Number 41/Pid/2017/PT.Bdg decided the defendant was acquitted of all lawsuits based on the judge's consideration of the defendant's statement and the testimony of witnesses where the judge found an element of agreement, while at the cassation level with Decision Number 699 K/Pid/2017 decided the defendant was guilty based on the judge's consideration of the testimony of witnesses where the judge found an element of fraud. In the third case, at the District Court with Decision Number 1091/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Jkt.Utr and at the appeal level with Decision Number 224/Pid.Sus/2019/PT.Dki, the defendant was found guilty based on the judge's consideration of witness testimony and the expert's statement indicating that the act had fulfilled the elements of the crime of fraud and money laundering, while at the cassation level with Decision Number 4374 K/Pid.Sus/2019 it was decided that the defendant was acquitted based on the judge's consideration of the defendant's statement by assessing that there was no synchronization of the whistleblower’s statement with statement of the public prosecutor regarding the place where the crime occurred (locus delicti). The act of investment fraud can ideally be punished because it has fulfilled the elements of a criminal act in the form of subjective and objective elements, such as the existence of a subject (human action), the existence of mens rea, the existence of errors, acts that are against the law and actions prohibited by law and punishable by crime. Based on the laws and regulations, the perpetrators of investment fraud can be punished using existing laws and regulations, such as criminal acts of fraud regulated in the Criminal Code (KUHP), Law Number 8 of 2010 on Countermeasure and Eradication of Money Laundering, Law Number 10 of 1998 on Banking and Law Number 7 of 2014 on Trade. It is suggested to Supreme Court judges to pay more attention to uniformity in deciding sentences against perpetrators of investment fraud, bearing in mind that the Supreme Court is an institution that has authority, so it is necessary to avoid conflicting decisions, and consistency in making decisions is urgently needed. Special arrangements are needed for criminal acts of investment fraud, the formulation of special rules also provides convenience for law enforcement officials in imposing criminal sanctions, so that judges in imposing criminal penalties on investment fraud perpetrators have similarities, the existence of special rules against criminal acts of investment fraud can provide legal certainty and legal protection for the community. Keywords: Investment Fraud; criminal sanctions; judge's consideration *Postgraduate Student of Syiah Kuala Law School **The Head of Supervision Commission ***The Member of Commission vii