Analisis Yuridis Proses Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Penipuan Melalui Pembayaran Elektronik Untuk Mewujudkan Perlindungan Hukum

https://doi.org/10.35912/jihham.v2i1.1579
Published: Dec 7, 2022

Abstract:

Article 45A paragraph (1) of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 states that any person who intentionally and without rights spreads false and misleading news that results in consumer losses in Electronic Transactions shall be punished with imprisonment and/or or fines. The fraud that occurred at One Mall Batam carried out through fake or fictitious electronic transactions cost the victim a total of 30 million rupiah.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine the regulation of criminal law against perpetrators of fraud through electronic payments in order to realize legal protection. And to find out the implementation, constraint factors and solutions in preventing and overcoming the rise of fraud in electronic payments. This research method is empirical juridical.

Methodology: This research consists of literature study and is also supported by field studies through interviews with respondents.

Results: The results of the study indicate that the regulation of criminal law against criminals through electronic payments in realizing legal protection, namely Article 378 of the Criminal Code which regulates special crimes, is also specifically regulated in Article 28 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 45A paragraph (1) of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions which regulates criminal acts of fraud committed through electronic transactions and is subject to a maximum criminal penalty of 6 (six) years and/or a maximum fine of Rp. 1,000,000,000 ,00 (one billion rupiah). Implementation in preventing and overcoming the rise of fraud in electronic payments is carried out by optimally criminalizing the perpetrators of crimes committed through electronic transactions.

Limitations: The constraint factor faced is that there are many types of electronic transactions that cannot be reported directly, making it easier to ensure the results of daily reports.

Contribution: The solution is that the victim must be more careful in accepting every payment through an electronic transaction, the victim must have the equipment to verify the proof of the electronic payment. It is recommended for law enforcement officers to optimize the performance of law enforcement for electronic transactions and dismantle tricks or methods applied by perpetrators to prevent other victims, victims to be more careful and thorough in accepting electronic transactions and must ensure first in advance of any payments made.

Keywords:
1. Juridical Analysis
2. Fraud Crime
3. Electronic Transaction
Authors:
1 . Muhammad Noval
2 . Ramon Nofrial
3 . Siti Nurkhotijah
View PDF
How to Cite
Noval, M. ., Nofrial, R. ., & Nurkhotijah, S. . (2022). Analisis Yuridis Proses Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Penipuan Melalui Pembayaran Elektronik Untuk Mewujudkan Perlindungan Hukum. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Dan Hak Asasi Manusia, 2(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.35912/jihham.v2i1.1579
Download Citation
  1. Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  2. BibTeX

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Issue & Section
Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022): Juli
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

    Andini, C., & Akbar, D. (2020). Tantangan Pariwisata pada Wilayah Perbatasan dalam Era Disrupsi Teknologi: Studi Kasus Regulasi Transportasi Online di Kota Batam, Kepulauan Riau. Indonesian Journal of Tourism and Leisure, 1(2), 73-81.

    Fahrizal, D., Anatami, D. ., & Nurkhotijah, S. (2022). Analisis Yuridis Tanggung Jawab Pelaku Usaha Terhadap Konsumen Akibat Keterlambatan Penerbangan Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, 2(1), 15-27. doi:https://doi.org/10.35912/jihham.v2i1.1546

    Lee, J. (2022). MAS untuk memperjelas tanggung jawab yang dipegang oleh konsumen, perusahaan keuangan dalam penipuan pembayaran elektronik. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/mas-taskforce-to-make-clear-the-liability-held-by-consumers-financial-firms-in-e.

    Prasetyo, T. (2014). Hukum Pidana, cetakan kelima. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

    Rahmawati, D., & Antoni, D. (2021). Faktor-faktor UMKM dalam Mengadopsi E-Market di Kabupaten Ogan Ilir. Jurnal Bisnis Dan Pemasaran Digital, 1(1), 13-31.

    Sitompul, J. (2012). Cyberspace, Cybercrimes, Cyberlaw: Tinjauan Aspek Hukum Pidana: PT Tatanusa.

    Suartha, I. D. M. (2015). Hukum Pidana Korporasi: Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Dalam Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Indonesia: Setara Press.

    Suasana, I. S. (2022). Prediksi Penipuan Digital yang Berkembang. http://sistem-komputer-s1.stekom.ac.id/informasi/baca/Prediksi-Penipuan-Digital-yang-berkembang di2022/615b40819f4660d092d6a7c1af4f9466fc413af9.

    Supriyono, S., Sholichah, V., & Irawan, A. D. (2022). Urgensi Pemenuhan Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara Era Pandemi Covid-19 di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, 1(2), 55-66.

    Teoh, W. M. Y., Chong, S. C., Lin, B., & Chua, J. W. (2013). Factors Affecting Consumers’ Perception of Electronic Payment: An Empirical Analysis. Internet Research.

    Widodo, W. (2013). Memerangi Cybercrime (Karakteristik, Motivasi, dan Strategi Penanganannya dalam Perspektif Kriminologi).

  1. Andini, C., & Akbar, D. (2020). Tantangan Pariwisata pada Wilayah Perbatasan dalam Era Disrupsi Teknologi: Studi Kasus Regulasi Transportasi Online di Kota Batam, Kepulauan Riau. Indonesian Journal of Tourism and Leisure, 1(2), 73-81.
  2. Fahrizal, D., Anatami, D. ., & Nurkhotijah, S. (2022). Analisis Yuridis Tanggung Jawab Pelaku Usaha Terhadap Konsumen Akibat Keterlambatan Penerbangan Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, 2(1), 15-27. doi:https://doi.org/10.35912/jihham.v2i1.1546
  3. Lee, J. (2022). MAS untuk memperjelas tanggung jawab yang dipegang oleh konsumen, perusahaan keuangan dalam penipuan pembayaran elektronik. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/mas-taskforce-to-make-clear-the-liability-held-by-consumers-financial-firms-in-e.
  4. Prasetyo, T. (2014). Hukum Pidana, cetakan kelima. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
  5. Rahmawati, D., & Antoni, D. (2021). Faktor-faktor UMKM dalam Mengadopsi E-Market di Kabupaten Ogan Ilir. Jurnal Bisnis Dan Pemasaran Digital, 1(1), 13-31.
  6. Sitompul, J. (2012). Cyberspace, Cybercrimes, Cyberlaw: Tinjauan Aspek Hukum Pidana: PT Tatanusa.
  7. Suartha, I. D. M. (2015). Hukum Pidana Korporasi: Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Dalam Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Indonesia: Setara Press.
  8. Suasana, I. S. (2022). Prediksi Penipuan Digital yang Berkembang. http://sistem-komputer-s1.stekom.ac.id/informasi/baca/Prediksi-Penipuan-Digital-yang-berkembang di2022/615b40819f4660d092d6a7c1af4f9466fc413af9.
  9. Supriyono, S., Sholichah, V., & Irawan, A. D. (2022). Urgensi Pemenuhan Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara Era Pandemi Covid-19 di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, 1(2), 55-66.
  10. Teoh, W. M. Y., Chong, S. C., Lin, B., & Chua, J. W. (2013). Factors Affecting Consumers’ Perception of Electronic Payment: An Empirical Analysis. Internet Research.
  11. Widodo, W. (2013). Memerangi Cybercrime (Karakteristik, Motivasi, dan Strategi Penanganannya dalam Perspektif Kriminologi).