PUTUSAN HAKIM TINDAK PIDANA PENIPUAN KONSUMEN DALAM TRANSAKSI ELEKTRONIK MELALUI MEDIA SOSIAL INSTAGRAM (Studi Putusan Nomor 951/Pid. Sus/2020/PN Jkt. Sel)

Abstract

The rapid development of technology has shifted consumption patterns to electronic transactions, which provide convenience while opening up opportunities for fraud that harm consumers. This study raises the issue in "Decision Number 951/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Jkt.Sel", a case of fake mask fraud on Instagram. The judge only imposed a prison sentence without imposing compensation or restitution. This study applies a normative juridical study method. The purpose of this study is to analyze whether the defendant's actions can be subject to Article 9 Paragraph (1) letter E of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection (UUPK) and whether the victim is entitled to restitution based on Article 7A paragraph (1) of Law Number 31 of 2014 concerning Witness and Victim Protection (UU LPSK). The results of the study indicate that the defendant's actions fulfill the elements of Article 9 paragraph (1) letter e of UUPK and the victim is entitled to restitution in Article 7A paragraph (1) of the LPSK Law even though it was not granted by the judge. It is recommended that law enforcement officers be more progressive in implementing the right to restitution and the public increase caution in electronic transactions.

Keywords: Verdict, Fraud, Electronic Transactions, Consumer Protection, Restitution.