The Affirmation of SOE Finance as State Asset Which Management Is Separately in an Effort to Strengthen Evidence of Criminal Acts in SOEs
Abstract
Talking about criminal acts of corruption which occur in the environment of State-Owned Enterprises (SOE); especially, regarding criminal acts of corruption that are detrimental to state finances, it turns out that there are still different views on interpreting the problem of the status of state finances managed by SOE. Even though the management of SOE is based on the principles of sound corporate governance in fostering and managing it, it does not necessarily mean that the separated state/regional assets have been transformed and recognized as SOE/ROE assets as an independent legal entity whose management is subject to the territory private law, but the state does the separation of state assets to be managed by SOE/ROE is to place state assets so that they can be managed professionally with corporate principles which will later become one of the efforts in order to maintain the potential revenue which has become the right of the state so as to generate benefits for improving the country's economy while at the same time increasing the welfare and intelligence of society as the goal of the Republic of Indonesia. Furthermore, with regard to the position of state finances, in the form of separated state assets and state financial losses, the Corruption Crime Law has provided limitations and judicial practices to date in interpreting separated state finances as defined in the Corruption Eradication Law. Therefore, even though the state/regional finances managed by the SOE/ROE are often questioned by the accused and their legal advisers about the position of state/regional finances in SOE/ROE which have been separated from state/regional finances, the judge's decision so far remains of the opinion that state finances separated remain within the framework of state finances. In addition, the essential matter that intends to be resolved through criminal law mechanisms related to acts of corruption in SOE/ROE which cause losses to the state is that the erosion of society's sense of justice due to evil deeds which destroy the values of trust.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
A Djoko Sumaryanto. 2008. Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Rangka Pengembalian Kerugian Kauangan Negara, Disertasi, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Airlangga Surabaya.
Erman Rajagukguk, Peranan Hukum dalam Mendorong BUMN Meningkatkan Pendapatan Negara dan Kesejateraan Rakyat, Materials Presented at the “Peranan BUMN Dalam Meningkatkan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Negara”, organized by Direktorat Jenderal Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Departemen Hukum dan HAM R.I., Jakarta 28 July 2008.
Erman Rajagukguk. 2016. Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) Dalam Bentuk Perseroan Terbatas. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia Fakultas Hukum.
https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2022/03/28/ada-119-kasus-korupsi-di-bumn-periode-2016-2021 accessed on 17 June 2023.
https://www.bpkp.go.id/kepri/berita/read/13486/0/Sosialisasi-Kerugian-Keuangan-Negara-untuk-Seluruh-Masyarakat-Melalui-Media-Elektronik.bpkp accessed on 15 June 2023.
Pasal 331 Ayat (4) UU Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 Tentang Pemerintahan Daerah.
Pasal 9 UU Nomor 19 tahun 2003 Tentang Badan Usaha Milik Negara.
Pendapat ahli perekonomian negara sebagaimana dikutip dalam putusan nomor 68/Pid.Sus-TPK/2022/PN SMG.
Penjelasan Umum UU Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
Peter Mahmud Marzuki. 2014. Penelitian Hukum Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 48/PUU-XI/2013 Mengenai Konsep Kekayaan Negara dalam Regulasi Penyertaan Modal Negara terhadap BUMN.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 62/PUU-XI/2013 Mengukuhkan Tugas dan Wewewnang BPK dalam Memeriksa Pengelolaan dan Tanggungjawab Keuangan Negara termasuk yang dipisahkan pada Perusahaan Negara/Daerah.
R. Wiyono. 2008. Pembahasan undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Saputra, Ardi. 2022. "Reformulasi Pengelolaan Penyertaan Dan Penatausahaan Modal Negara Pada BUMN Berbentuk Perseroan Terbatas." Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila Dan Kewarganegaraan Volume 7 Nomor 1. Hlm. 60.
Sebagaimana Penjelasan Pasal 2 angka 7 Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 1999 Tentang Penyelenggaraan Negara Yang Bersih Dari Korupsi, Kolusi, Dan Nepotisme, yang dimaksud dengan pejabat lain yang memiliki fungsi Strategis adalah pejabat yang tugas dan wewenangnya didalam melakukan penyelenggaraan negara rawan terhadap praktek korupsi, kolusi, dan nepotisme, yang meliputi: 1) Direksi, Komisaris, dan pejabat struktural lainnya pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara dan Badan Usaha Milik Daerah; 2) Pimpinan Bank indonesia dan Pimpinan Badan Penyehatan Bank Indonesia; 3) Pimpinan Perguruan Tinggi Negeri; 4) Pejabat Eselon I dan Pejabat lain yang disamakan di lingkungan sipil, militer, dan Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia; 5) Jaksa; 6) Penyidik; 7) Panitera Pengadilan; 8) Pimpinan dan Bendaharawan Proyek.
Siswo Sujanto. Pemikiran Tentang BUMN di Indonesia: Implementasi dan Konsekuensinya, Papers submitted in Seminar Revitalisasi Filosofi Ruang Lingkup Keuangan Negara dan Implementasinya Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor : 48/PUU-XI/2013, hosted by Pusdiklat Anggaran dan Perbendaharaan, Badan Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Keuangan Kementerian Keuangan Republik Indonesia in Jakarta on December 5, 2014.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v10i7.4932
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.