Febriana, Nia (2023) TINJAUAN YURIDIS PEMERIKSAAN BUKTI PERMULAAN SEBAGAI OBJEK PRAPERADILAN DALAM TINDAK PIDANA PERPAJAKAN (Studi Kasus Putusan Praperadilan Nomor : 14/Pid.Pra/2022/PN. Sby). S1 thesis, UNIVERSITAS SULTAN AGENG TIRTAYASA.
![[img]](https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text (SKRIPSI FULLTEXT)
Nia Febriana_1111180121_Fulltext .pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (4MB) |
|
Text (BAB I)
Nia Febriana_1111180121_01.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (2MB) |
|
Text (BAB II)
Nia Febriana_1111180121_02.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (346kB) |
|
Text (BAB III)
Nia Febriana_1111180121_03.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (541kB) |
|
Text (BAB IV)
Nia Febriana_1111180121_04.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (558kB) |
|
Text (BAB V)
Nia Febriana_1111180121_05.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (158kB) |
|
Text (DAFTAR PUSTAKA)
Nia Febriana_111118021_Ref.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (423kB) |
|
Text (LAMPIRAN)
Nia Febriana_1111180121_Lamp.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (585kB) |
Abstract
Preliminary evidence examination carried out to obtain preliminary evidence regarding the allegation that a criminal act in the field of taxation has occurred. This is same as an investigation in the Criminal Procedure Code. The implementation of the preliminary evidence examination is regulated in Law Number 28 of 2007 and has been amended by Law Number 7 of 2021 and Minister of Finance Regulation Number 239/PMK.03/2014. The pretrial request was granted by Surabaya District Court judge related to the initial evidence examination was not in accordance with Article 77 of Criminal Procedure Code and Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 concerning pretrial objects. Based on this background, the problems studied are how preliminary evidence examination implemented? and how the pretrial judge considers decision number 14/Pid.Pra/2022/PN. Sby? The theories in this research are the principle of legal certainty and ratio decidendi. The method used in this study is a qualitative method with a normative juridical approach. The results of the study show that the implementation of preliminary evidence examination is different from search and foreclosure as assessed by the pretrial applicant. That cause legal uncertainty in interpreting the preliminary evidence examination in the field of taxation. The judge's considerations regarding the examination of preliminary evidence can be equated with a search and foreclosure contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code Article 77 and the verdict Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, so the decision should be rejected because the preliminary evidence examination does not include pretrial objects. The advice that can be conveyed for understanding and good cooperation between preliminary evidence examiners, taxpayers and pretrial judges is needed and should be carefully guided by Criminal Procedure Code, Constitutional Court Decisions and tax regulations so that tackling criminal acts of taxation to recover state losses can be resolved. Keywords: Preliminary Evidence Examination, Pretrial, Tax Crime.
| Item Type: | Thesis (S1) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributors: |
|
|||||||||
| Additional Information: | Pemeriksaan bukti permulaan dilakukan untuk mendapatkan bukti permulaan tentang adanya dugaan telah terjadi tindak pidana di bidang perpajakan, hal tersebut sama dengan penyelidikan di dalam KUHAP. Implementasi pemeriksaan bukti permulaan diatur pada Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2007 sebagaimana telah diubah menjadi Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2021 dan Peraturan Menteri Keuangan Nomor 239/PMK.03/2014. Permohonan praperadilan yang dikabulkan hakim Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya berkaitan dengan pemeriksaan bukti permulaan tidak sesuai dengan KUHAP Pasal 77 dan putusan mahkamah konstitusi nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 mengenai objek praperadilan. Berdasarkan latar belakang tersebut, permasalahan yang dikaji adalah bagaimana implementasi pemeriksaan bukti permulaan tindak pidana perpajakan? dan bagaimana pertimbangan hakim praperadilan putusan nomor 14/Pid.Pra/2022/PN. Sby? Teori yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini antara lain asas kepastian hukum dan ratio decidendi. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode kualitatif dengan pendekatan yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa Implementasi pemeriksaan bukti permulaan berbeda dengan penggeledahan dan penyitaan sebagaimana yang diuraikan oleh pemohon praperadilan, hal tersebut mengakibatkan ketidakpastian hukum dalam memaknai pemeriksaan bukti permulaan di bidang perpajakan. Pertimbangan hakim terkait pemeriksaan bukti permulaan dapat dipersamakan dengan penggeledahan dan penyitaan bertentangan dengan KUHAP Pasal 77 dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014, maka semestinya putusan terhadap pengajuan objek praperadilan tersebut ditolak karena pemeriksaan bukti permulaan tidak termasuk objek praperadilan. Saran yang dapat disampaikan ialah diperlukan kesepahaman dan kerja sama yang baik antara pemeriksa bukti permulaan, wajib pajak serta hakim praperadilan yang hendaknya dapat merujuk pada KUHAP, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi serta peraturan perpajakan agar penanggulangan tindak pidana perpajakan untuk memulihkan kerugian negara dapat teratasi. Kata Kunci: Pemeriksaan Bukti Permulaan, Praperadilan, Tindak Pidana Perpajakan. | |||||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Keywords: Preliminary Evidence Examination, Pretrial, Tax Crime. Kata Kunci: Pemeriksaan Bukti Permulaan, Praperadilan, Tindak Pidana Perpajakan. | |||||||||
| Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) | |||||||||
| Divisions: | 01-Fakultas Hukum 01-Fakultas Hukum > 74201-Program Studi Ilmu Hukum |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Nia Febriana | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 12 Dec 2023 10:50 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 12 Dec 2023 10:50 | |||||||||
| URI: | http://eprints.untirta.ac.id/id/eprint/31405 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |