Art Original

Analisis Kepastian Hukum Pengembalian Barang Bukti dalam Tindak Pidana Kehutanan

---

Research on Decision No. 54/Pid.B/2015/PN Dgl jo No. 2317 K/Pid.Sus/2015 shows the disparity in criminal decisions on the seizure of evidence in forestry crimes. The court of first instance returned the evidence to its owner, while the court of cassation seized the evidence for the state. the Panel of Judges at the cassation level acted in accordance with the Explanation of Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2013 Jo. Law No. 11 of 2020 Jo. Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022, while Decision Number 54/Pid.B/2015/PN Dgl does not comply with the aforementioned regulations. Based on the above background, the problem formulations to be answered in the writing of this thesis include: how is the legal certainty towards the return of evidence in forestry criminal offences in Indonesia? And how is the ideal arrangement in forestry criminal offences in Indonesia in relation to evidence referred to in Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2013 Jo. Law No. 11 of 2020 Jo. Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022? This research include prescriptive normative law research use of legislation approach and case approach. This research use primary and secondary data. Analysis techniques used literature studies and law materials analysis techniques used qualitative analysis with deductive conclusions. From the results of research and discussion, the legal certainty towards the return of evidence in forestry criminal offences in Indonesia that Law No. 12 of 2011 states criminal provisions must be contained in the body of the law, while the regulation regarding the seizure of evidence in Law No. 18 of 2013 is not regulated in the body of the law, but is formulated in the explanation section, so it cannot be categorised as a criminal provision. For the seizure of evidence belonging to a third party who is not a convicted person, the seizure is contrary to the principle of legality and the principle of legal certainty. The ideal arrangement in forestry criminal offences in Indonesia in relation to evidence referred to in Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2013 Jo. Law No. 11 of 2020 Jo. Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 is: 1). Regulations regarding the seizure of evidence for the state must be formulated in the body of Law No. 18 of 2013; 2). Provide legal protection to third parties who are in good faith against the legal consequences of seizure of conveyances for the state by formulating it in the body; 3). Define what is meant by forest product timber and classify the types of forest product timber, making clear and firm boundaries to distinguish types of cultivated timber.

---

Availability

Detail Information

Call Number

Hukum 345.06 Ign a

Language

Indonesia

NPM

211021087

Publisher

Ilmu Hukum : Universitas Islam Riau., 2024

Keyword(s)

Evidence
Legal Certainty
Forestry Crime

Other Information

Petugas

Uthi Kurnia

Other version/related

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment