Praktik nominee sebagai modus persekongkolan tender pengadaan barang/jasa pemerintah

Muhammad, Ryan (2022) Praktik nominee sebagai modus persekongkolan tender pengadaan barang/jasa pemerintah. Masters thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.

Preview	Text (Title) CT_01659200021_RYAN MUHAMMAD.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (32kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Abstract) Abstract[1].pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (332kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (ToC) ToC[1].pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (287kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Chapter1) Chapter1[1].pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (500kB) | Preview
	Text (Chapter2) Chapter2[1].pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (550kB)
	Text (Chapter3) Chapter3[1].pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (351kB)
	Text (Chapter4) Chapter4[1].pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (507kB)
	Text (Chapter5) Chapter5[1].pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (339kB)
Preview	Text (Bibliography) Bibliography[1].pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (410kB) | Preview
	Text (Appendices) Appendices[1]_watermark.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)

Abstract

Lingkungan persaingan usaha di Indonesia hingga saat ini masih dinodai dengan berbagai praktik kecurangan yang dilakukan oleh pihak-pihak yang terlibat didalamnya, salah satunya ialah praktik kecurangan dalam bentuk persekongkolan tender yang dilakukan melalui praktik nominee dalam lelang pekerjaan di lingkungan Dinas PUPR Kabupaten Lampung Selatan Tahun Anggaran 2017 dan Tahun Anggaran 2018 sebagaimana terungkap dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 113 K/Pid.Sus/2020. Terdapat 2 (dua) rumusan masalah yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini, yaitu: (1) Bagaimana bentuk praktik nominee dan unsur pelanggaran Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 113 K/Pid.Sus/2020? (2) Bagaimana problematika pengaturan Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 dihadapkan dengan studi kasus pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 113 K/Pid.Sus/2020? Metodologi penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini ialah penelitian hukum normatif, dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Berdasarkan hasil pembahasan penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa: (1) Bupati Lampung Selatan periode 2016-2021 selaku pemilik manfaat (beneficiary owner) PT. Krakatau Karya Indonesia (PT. KKI) telah terbukti turut serta secara tidak langsung dengan menunjuk pihak nominee untuk mengikutsertakan perusahaannya dalam lelang pekerjaan di lingkungan Dinas PUPR Kabupaten Lampung Selatan Tahun Anggaran 2017 dan Tahun Anggaran 2018, serta mengatur dan menentukan pemenang lelang pekerjaan tersebut. Dengan demikian, lelang pekerjaan tersebut telah memenuhi unsur pelanggaran Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999, dengan jenis persekongkolan tender horizontal dan vertikal (gabungan). (2) Terdapat problematika dalam hal pengaturan Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999, pertama, pendekatan per se illegal dinilai lebih ideal untuk diterapkan dalam perkara jenis persekongkolan tender horizontal dan vertikal (gabungan) daripada pendekatan rule of reason sebagaimana ditetapkan dalam Peraturan KPPU No. 2 Tahun 2010 apabila dihadapkan pada studi kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 113 K/Pid.Sus/2020. Kedua, adanya frasa kata “dapat” dalam bunyi ketentuan Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 menimbulkan multi-interpretasi sehingga tidak memberikan kepastian hukum dalam penerapannya, sehingga berpotensi memberikan celah bagi KPPU untuk bertindak sewenang-wenang dalam hal penggunaan pendekatan rule of reason maupun per se illegal secara inkonsisten dalam penegakan hukum terhadap setiap dugaan pelanggaran Pasal 22 UU No. 5 Tahun 1999./The business competition environment in Indonesia is still tainted by various fraudulent practices carried out by the parties involved in it, one of which is fraudulent practices in the form of tender conspiracy which is carried out through “nominee” practices in job auctions at the PUPR Office of South Lampung Regency for Fiscal Year 2017 and Fiscal Year 2018 as stated in the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 113 K/Pid.Sus/2020. There are 2 (two) problem formulations in this study, including: (1) what is the form of “nominee” practice and the elements of violation of Article 22 of Law No. 5 of 1999 in the case of corruption in the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 113 K/Pid.Sus/2020? (2) What are the problems in the regulation of Article 22 of Law No. 5 of 1999 when faced with a case study of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 113 K/Pid.Sus/2020? The research methodology used in this research is normative legal research, with a legal approach, a case approach, and a conceptual approach. The results of the study concluded that: (1) South Lampung Regent for the 2016-2021 period as the beneficiary owner of PT. Krakatau Karya Indonesia (PT. KKI) has been proven to participate indirectly by involving the company through the practice of "nominee" in job auctions within the PUPR Office of South Lampung Regency for Fiscal Year 2017 and Fiscal Year 2018, as well as arranging and determining the winner of the job auction. Thus, the element of violation of Article 22 of Law No. 5 of 1999 in the auction of the work has been fulfilled, with the types of horizontal and vertical (combined) tender conspiracy. (2) There are problems in the regulation of Article 22 of Law no. 5 of 1999. First, the per se illegal approach is considered more ideal to be applied in horizontal and vertical (combined) tender conspiracy cases than the rule of reason approach when faced with case studies of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Indonesia Number: 113 K/Pid.Sus/2020. Second, the phrase "can" in the provisions of Article 22 of Law No. 5 of 1999 gives rise to multiple interpretations so that it does not provide legal certainty in its application, thus potentially providing a loophole for the Business Competition Supervisory Commission of the Republic of Indonesia (KPPU) to act arbitrarily in the case of inconsistent use of the rule of reason or per se illegal approach in law enforcement against violations of Article 22 Law No. 5 of 1999.

Actions (login required)

View Item