PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA ATAS PELANGGARAN PRINSIP KEHATI-HATIAN PEMBERIAN KREDIT DALAM TINDAK PIDANA PERBANKAN

(Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta 23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI)

Abstract

As a financial institution, banks provide products offered to the public such as
demand deposits, savings, deposits and loans. In relation to efforts to develop the
country's economy, it can be said that the most influential bank product is credit. In
carrying out these credit business activities, banks are represented by bank officials
providing credit products and or services to the public. Bank officials have a very
important role in the implementation of credit business activities because they can
affect the provision of credit, which is often misused by bank officials, such as
violations of general principles that are the main basis for banks in providing credit.
One example is in the case of the decision of the DKI Jakarta High Court Number
23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI which is a banking crime case. Violations committed by
bank officials against the precautionary principle occurred at PT. Bank Yudha Bakti
to its debtors where bank officials PT. Bank Yudha Bakti does not carry out its
duties and responsibilities by applying the principle of prudence in providing
credit.This study aims to identify legal accountability for banking crimes in the
decision of the DKI Jakarta High Court Number 23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI and
also to find out how to solve the problems of banking criminal acts according to
Law Number 10 1998 against the Decision of the DKI Jakarta District High Court
Number 23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI,
The type of research conducted is legal research with normative juridical by
conducting a study of criminal liability in banking crimes. The data collection
method used is the library method and the case approach method, then the data
obtained is analyzed descriptively qualitatively so as to reveal the expected results
and conclusions on the problem.
The results of the study indicate that the liability for banking crimes in Decision
Number 23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI which states that the defendant a.n Ningsih
Suciati as the former Director of Wholesale Banking of Bank Yudha Bakti has been
legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing a banking crime. That in the
decision only the defendant was convicted because the actions committed by the
defendant were carried out in a structured manner as if his actions were true so that
it was clear that there was an intention (meansrea) to approve the credit proposed
by Goutam Shamdepchand even though the requirements for granting credit
facilities had not been met, as well as efforts to settlement of violations of the
application of the prudential principle of lending to the constraints of banking
crimes. The provision of credit by a bank carries risks, so that in its implementation,
banks must pay attention to sound credit principles.
Keywords : Accountability, Banking, Prudential Principle