Kedudukan Kekayaan Negara Yang Dipisahkan Pada Badan Usaha Milik Negara Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi
STUDI KASUS PERKARA NO. 1144 k/pid/2006 DAN PERKARA NO.414/K/Pidsus/2014
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37253/jjr.v20i2.361Keywords:
State Separated Pool Asset, State-Owned EnterpriseAbstract
State-owned enterprises in the form of Persero which in carrying out its business continues to develop, it is unfortunate until now there are still unclear provisions of the arrangement and often cause problems in relation to the element of state ownership of the assets of the Persero, especially if the Persero experienced losse. So it raises msalah concerning the status of state assets separated on state-owned enterprises in the form of Persero and the relationship between state assets separated on state-owned corporations with corruption in the case no. 1144 k / pid / 2006 and no. 414 / K / PID.SUS / 20114. This Research was conducted based on normative law using Normative Law Research method. The data source used is secondary data source. Data were collected by literature study. After the data is collected, the Author processes and analyzes the data. Qualitative analysis is used to classify data based on the aspects studied. The conclusions illustrated relate to this study, then presented by the author descriptively. Based on this research study, State Property Status Is Separated In State-Owned Enterprises There is no uniformity or disharmonization of legislation regarding the rules that govern UUKN State Wealth Is Separated In State-Owned Enterprises Persero still be the object of state finances but instead UUBUMN looked at the State's Wealth Separated In State-Owned Enterprises are separated from state wealth. The relationship between state assets separated from state-owned enterprises and corruption is closely related, law enforcement officials place the loss of SOEs in the public legal aspect (State finance) so that the rules follow the mechanism set forth in the State Finance Law and the Corruption Eradication Act. This is not in accordance with the theory of legal entities and the principles of corporate law