Analisis pertimbangan hukum kppu dalam menggunakan bukti tidak langsung (indirect evidence) dalam memutuskan kasus-kasus hukum terkait kartel

Simanjuntak, Harry F. (2018) Analisis pertimbangan hukum kppu dalam menggunakan bukti tidak langsung (indirect evidence) dalam memutuskan kasus-kasus hukum terkait kartel. Masters thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.

[img] Text (Title)
title.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (855kB)
[img] Text (Abstract)
abstract.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (203kB)
[img] Text (ToC)
toc.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (315kB)
[img] Text (Chapter 1)
chapter 1.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (329kB)
[img] Text (Chapter 2)
chapter 2.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (391kB)
[img] Text (Chapter 3)
chapter 3.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (260kB)
[img] Text (Chapter 4)
chapter 4.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (650kB)
[img] Text (Chapter 5)
chapter 5.pdf
Restricted to Registered users only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (173kB)
[img] Text (Bibliography)
bibliography.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.

Download (223kB)

Abstract

In deciding cases related to cartel, KPPU often uses indirect evidence as the basis for determining violation of Law no. 5/1999. If it is associated with the provision of Article 42 of Law no. 5/1999, then indirect evidence can not be equated with evidence evidence. Guidance evidence is generally required if other evidence does not meet the minimum level of proof and can only be used after witness evidence, letters and explanations from business actor. In other words, guidance is an evidence dependent on other evidence. If there is no other evidence that indicates a violation of Law no. 5/1999, KPPU can not state the existence of the guidance of such violation. While indirect evidence stands alone without any relation to other evidence and more lead to allegations, interpretation or interpretation, and logic. The three things that are actually prohibited and violate Article 42 of Law no. 5 of 1999.The use of indirect evidence is possible in criminal justice. It is intended that the judge be active and have discretion in disconnecting using existing evidence of both direct and indirect evidence. In view of the penalties threatened by Law no. 5 of 1999 there is criminal penalty, hence the use of indirect evidence as directive becomes relevant to be used and applied. / Dalam memutus kasus-kasus terkait kartel, KPPU sering menggunakan indirect evidence sebagai dasar menentukan adanya pelanggaran UU No. 5/1999. Jika dikaitkan dengan ketentuan Pasal 42 UU No. 5/1999, maka indirect evidence tidak dapat dipersamakan dengan alat bukti petunjuk. Alat bukti petunjuk umumnya diperlukan apabila alat bukti lain belum memenuhi batas minimum pembuktian dan baru dapat digunakan setelah ada alat bukti saksi, surat, dan keterangan pelaku usaha. Dengan kata lain, petunjuk merupakan alat bukti yang bergantung kepada alat bukti lain. Jika tidak ada alat bukti lain yang menunjukan adanya pelanggaran UU No. 5/1999, maka KPPU tidak dapat menyatakan adanya petunjuk perlanggaran tersebut. Sedangkan indirect evidence berdiri sendiri tanpa ada kaitannya dengan alat bukti lain dan lebih mengarah kepada dugaan, penafsiran atau interpretasi, dan logika. Ketiga hal yang sebenarnya dilarang dan melanggar Pasal 42 Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999. Penggunaan petunjuk sebagai bukti tidak langsung (indirect evidence) dimungkinkan pada peradilan yang hukumannya pidana. Hal ini bertujuan agar hakim bersikap aktif dan memiliki keleluasaan kebijaksaan dalam memutus dengan menggunakan bukti-bukti yang ada baik bukti langsung maupun bukti tidak langsung. Mengingat hukuman yang diancamkan oleh Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999 terdapat hukuman pidana, maka penggunaan petunjuk sebagai indirect evidence menjadi relevan untuk digunakan dan diterapkan.

Item Type: Thesis (Masters)
Creators:
CreatorsNIMEmail
Simanjuntak, Harry F.NIM00000031502UNSPECIFIED
Contributors:
ContributionContributorsNIDN/NIDKEmail
Thesis advisorSilalahi, UdinNIDN0320095801UNSPECIFIED
Additional Information: T 59-16 SIM a
Subjects: K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions: University Subject > Current > Faculty/School - UPH Karawaci > Faculty of Law > Master of Law
Current > Faculty/School - UPH Karawaci > Faculty of Law > Master of Law
Depositing User: Users 15 not found.
Date Deposited: 13 Sep 2019 02:54
Last Modified: 18 Nov 2021 05:46
URI: http://repository.uph.edu/id/eprint/4572

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item