top of page

Examination of Judge's Decision Number 732/Pid.Sus/2017/PN Jkt.Utr: A Case Study of Immigration Crimes Committed by Corporation based on Article 118 juncto Article 136 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian

M. Alvi Syahrin, Tony Mirwanto, Budy Mulyawan, M. Ryanindityo, Agung Sulistyo Purnomo, Sri Kuncoro Bawono, Wilonotomo, Novan Syahputra

Polytechnic of Immigration (Indonesia), Directorate General of Immigration (Indonesia)

In applying this article, the author finds a discrepancy between the judge's decision that has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde) and what is mandated by Law Number 6 of 2011 concerning Immigration. Article 136 paragraph (1) explains that if an immigration crime is committed by a corporation, the parties who can be asked for responsibility are the management and the corporation. The author sees that there are three elements that have an influence on the effectiveness of law enforcement, namely Immigration Investigators, Public Prosecutors, and Judges. In this case, the Public Prosecutor has a major role in influencing the non-compliance with the application of the article. This is because the Public Prosecutor has authority over who and how much prosecution is in this case. However, the author cannot know what the basis for the Public Prosecutor's consideration in conducting the prosecution is because the Public Prosecutor is known to have died. The author concludes that there was an error in the interpretation of the elements of legal norms in Article 118 juncto Article 136 paragraph (1) which resulted in the prosecution only directed at the corporation.



bottom of page