<![CDATA[Criminal liability in the Corruption Crime Act as stated in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3. Judges' Considerations in Determining the Subject of the Criminal Acts of Corruption in the Procurement of Goods and Services in Court Decision Number 2421 K/PID.SUS/2016, namely there are Human subject. The consideration was that Defendant I had malicious intentions starting from planning tenders, conducting tenders, carrying out work and completing work, based on the facts that the Defendant tried to influence the auction process by appointing officials who did not have the expertise as PPK so that the PPK was incompetent and directed and ordered the tender committee. to win a friend's company by privileging and not evaluating. The Transfer of Legal Responsibility From Commitment Making Officials (PPK) to PA and KPA In the Decision Case Number: 2421 K/PID.SUS/2016 there are irregularities, where the Commitment Making Officer (PPK) as well as the Technical Implementation Officer of Activities (PPTK) are not made suspects but made witness. The existing legal issue is regarding the flow of case investigations that make the Commitment Making Officer (PPK) a witness. Based on the facts of the trial, there is some corroborating evidence that the Commitment Making Officer (PPK) as well as the Technical Implementation Officer (PPTK) must be responsible for the act.]]>
Copyrights © 2022
