Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Pasal 35 ayat (1) huruf k Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2021 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, memberikan kewenangan penerapan denda damai dalam penuntutan tindak pidana perekonomian, yang dinilai efektif memulihkan kerugian negara. Meskipun telah diakomodasi dalam KUHAP 2025, pengaturan ini masih menghadapi kendala yuridis, antara lain: ketidakharmonisan norma, ketidakjelasan definisi tindak pidana perekonomian, serta ketiadaan mekanisme yang terukur. Selain itu, multitafsir kewenangan kejaksaan berpotensi memicu ketidakpastian hukum dan benturan antarlembaga.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji dan menganalisis esensi konsep denda damai dalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia, mengonstruksikan kategori tindak pidana perekonomian yang dapat diterapkan denda damai, serta merumuskan pengaturan ideal konsep denda damai dalam penuntutan tindak pidana perekonomian di Indonesia.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konsep, kasus, sejarah, dan perbandingan. Sumber data berupa data sekunder yang mencakup bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Data kepustakaan tersebut dianalisis secara kualitatif dan diinterpretasikan dengan penalaran hukum (legal reasoning) serta argumentasi hukum yang logis.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan, bahwa pertama, konsep denda damai merupakan stelsel pemidanaan strategis dalam penanggulangan tindak pidana perekonomian yang tidak menghilangkan efek jera, karena bukan merupakan bentuk pemaafan. Sebagai manifestasi asas oportunitas dan keadilan restoratif, konsep ini memberikan kewenangan kepada jaksa agung untuk menyelesaikan perkara di luar pengadilan tanpa campur tangan hakim. Secara filosofis, denda damai mengubah paradigma pemidanaan dari retributif menuju pemulihan (restorative). Secara historis, denda damai dalam UU TPE dan KUHP WvS hanya menyasar pelanggaran perekonomian ringan, berbeda dengan UU Kejaksaan yang berbasis asas oportunitas untuk kejahatan perekonomian berat. Peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa konsep transactie/vergelijk dalam Pasal 132 KUHP Nasional bukanlah diskresi murni jaksa agung, melainkan sekadar alasan gugurnya penuntutan. Secara pragmatis, mekanisme denda damai efektif memulihkan kerugian negara melalui optimalisasi asset recovery dan efisiensi (cost-benefit analysis) yang selaras dengan asas peradilan cepat, sederhana, dan biaya ringan. Kedua, kategori tindak pidana perekonomian yang dapat diterapkan denda damai, meliputi kejahatan bermotif keuntungan finansial (illegal gain) yang berdampak pada kerugian perekonomian negara, seperti: perpajakan, kepabeanan, lingkungan, kehutanan, korupsi, pencucian uang, dan tindak pidana lain yang berdampak luas. Batas kerugian negara minimal ditetapkan sebesar Rp1.000.000.000,00 (satu miliar rupiah). Untuk kerugian di atas Rp50.000.000.000,00 (lima puluh miliar rupiah) atau yang berdampak pada pelayanan publik dan stabilitas negara, persetujuan jaksa agung wajib menyertakan pertimbangan lembaga negara terkait. Hal ini sejalan dengan Putusan MK Nomor 29/PUU-XIV/2016 dan UU Kejaksaan guna memfilter agar diskresi bersifat objektif dan demi kepentingan umum. Ketiga, secara yuridis, kejaksaan memiliki kewenangan atributif menangani tindak pidana perekonomian secara integratif (penyidikan dan penuntutan) sebagai manifestasi asas dominus litis dan single prosecution system. Keputusan penerapan denda damai bersifat mengikat (final and binding). Pengaturan ideal penerapannya harus diformulasikan melalui mekanisme berjenjang yang terukur, dimulai dari permohonan, verifikasi melalui gelar perkara (ekspose), dan persetujuan jaksa agung, dengan komponen denda mencakup kerugian negara, biaya eksplisit, serta sanksi denda sesuai undang-undang terkait.
Disarankan kepada aparat penegak hukum untuk memprioritaskan penerapan denda damai dalam penanganan tindak pidana perekonomian. Selain itu, pemerintah diharapkan segera menyusun regulasi tentang persyaratan penerapan denda damai, serta Kejaksaan Agung perlu menerbitkan peraturan tentang pedoman penyidikan dan penuntutan perkara tindak pidana perekonomian.

Kata Kunci: Denda damai, oportunitas, tindak pidana perekonomian, pemulihan kerugian negara

Article 35, paragraph (1), letter k of Act Number 16 of 2004 regarding the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, as amended by Act Number 11 of 2021, confers the authority to impose peace fines in the prosecution of economic crimes considered effective in recovering state losses. This legislation, although incorporated in the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, encounters legal impediments such as normative disharmony, ambiguous definitions of economic crimes, and a lack of quantifiable measures. The multifaceted interpretation of the prosecutor's authority may induce legal ambiguity and inter-agency disputes. This research seeks to investigate the nature of peace fines within the Indonesian criminal justice system, categorise economic crimes eligible for such peace fines, and develop optimal regulations for the application of peace fines in prosecuting economic offences in Indonesia. The employed research method is normative juridical, utilising legislative, conceptual, case, historical, and comparative approaches. The data source comprises secondary data, encompassing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The library data is subjected to qualitative analysis and interpreted using legal reasoning and logical argumentation. The research findings are that, first, the notion of peace fines serves as a strategic punitive mechanism in the fight against economic crimes, preserving the deterrent effect without constituting a sort of absolution. This notion serves as a basic expression of opportunity and restorative justice, enabling the Attorney General to settle matters extrajudicially without court involvement. Philosophically, peace fines transition the framework of punishment from retributive to restorative. Historically, peace fines in the Economic Crime Law and the Criminal Code addressed small offences, in contrast to the Prosecutor's Law, which operates based on opportunity for significant economic crimes. The author asserts that the provision in the National Criminal Code does not grant the Attorney General absolute authority but rather serves as a justification for the cessation of prosecution. This mechanism effectively recovers state losses through asset recovery optimisation and cost-benefit analysis efficiency, adhering to the principles of expedited, straightforward, and economical justice. Secondly, the categories of economic crimes subject to peace fines encompass offences driven by financial gain that result in economic detriment to the state, including taxation, customs, environmental violations, forestry infractions, corruption, money laundering, and other crimes with extensive repercussions. The minimal threshold for state losses is established at IDR. 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah). For losses beyond IDR. 50,000,000,000.00 (fifty billion rupiah) or those affecting public services and national stability, the Attorney General's approval must incorporate input from pertinent state organisations. This aligns with Constitutional Court Decision Number 29/PUU-XIV/2016 and the Prosecutor's Office Law, which seek to refine discretion to ensure objectivity and serve the public interest. Third, the Attorney General has the legal authority to manage economic crimes comprehensively (investigation and prosecution) as a reflection of the principles of dominus litis and the single prosecution system. The decision to impose a peace fines is conclusive and obligatory. The optimal execution of this regulation should be designed through a stratified, quantifiable framework, commencing with the application, verification via case hearings (exposures), and endorsement by the Attorney General, with the penalty aspect encompassing state losses, specified costs, and fines in accordance with applicable laws. It is suggested that law enforcement agencies to prioritize the application of peace fine in handling economic crimes. In addition. The government should soon arrange the regulation of circumtances of peace fine implementation and the general attorney should issue the regulation on investigation and accusation guidances of economic crimes. Keywords: Peace fines, opportunities, economic crimes, state loss recovery.