ANALISIS PEMENUHAN UNSUR PASAL 5 UU TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG MELALUI REKENING PIHAK KETIGA

Abstract

Accounts as a means of disguising the origin of funds is increasingly receiving serious attention in Indonesian criminal law, as reflected in the match-fixing bribery case decided through Decision Number 50/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Banjarnegara. This research focuses on two main issues: first, examining the accuracy of the judge's consideration that acquitted the defendant from money laundering charges on the grounds that the defendant was not an abettor, reviewed from the concept of legal certainty; second, assessing whether the judge's consideration that the element of receiving or controlling placement, transfer, or use of assets was not fulfilled is appropriate when associated with the 5 standard minimum rules of money laundering according to Dr. Yenti Garnasih. Using a normative legal method with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, this research concludes that the judge's reasoning regarding the abettor status is legally incorrect from the standpoint of legal certainty. Nevertheless, the judge's conclusion that the elements of Article 5 were not fulfilled can be justified through the 5 standard minimum rules framework, in which only 2 of 5 standards financial transaction and proceed of crime are met, while unlawful activity, knowledge, and intended are not, thus the defendant's conduct does not meet the conceptual threshold required for money laundering.