| dc.description.abstract | Corruption is the biggest enemy for our nation nowadays. A lot of promises
had been given by the government to throw away the parasite that has been
destroying the wealth and the health of this nation. So many excuses had beed said
and so many efforts had been done to erase this criminal act that has been giving
bad impacts for the economical side of this country. The Act Number 31 0f 1999
that had been changed with the Act Number 20 of 2001 on Corruption is the main
weapon for law enforcement officers to destroy corruption. But still there are
some differentiations toward the interpretations and implementations of this law
enforcement. Even in the main regulation of Criminal Law, the Indonesian Book
of Criminal Law (KUHP), there are still some differentiations toward the
interpretations and implementations of the articles. For example, those
differentiations could be seen in interpretations and implementations of the article
64 (1) KUHP about voorgezette handeling. So that, this main regulation of
Criminal Law could hardly reach its aim to interpret the article in its connections
with the implementation of this article towards the “special” Criminal Law, like
corruption.
Based on that background, so it could be formulated as the main problem are
there any unsure of voorgezette handeling in the corruption, using the point of
view of the Case Result of the Supreme Court Number 995/K/PID/2006 juncto
Number 996/K/PID/2006 in the Corruption Act towards Nazaruddin Sjamsuddin
as the Chiel of the Election Committee (KPU) and Hamdani Amin as the public
officer/ Chief Department. And the aims of this research is to comprehend the
meaning and unsure of voorgezette handeling and to know the existence of
voorgezette handeling in the corruption. The method that is used in this final
paper is normative jurisdiction, which means a research that based on the
regulations and literature relevant with the case discussed in this paper. | en_US |
