PENERAPAN PEMIDANAAN TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA CARDING PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PIDANA DI INDONESIA (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN NOMOR 845/PID.SUS/2020/PT SBY)
Keywords:
Carding, Sentencing, Cyber CrimeAbstract
This research aims to analyze the implementation of punishment for perpetrators of carding crimes from the perspective of criminal law in Indonesia, with a case study of decision Number 845/Pid.Sus/2020/PT SBY. Carding is a criminal offense that involves the illegal use of credit card data for financial gain. Even though it has developed rapidly in cyberspace, the implementation of sanctions against carding perpetrators in Indonesia still faces various challenges. This research method is a qualitative analysis of relevant court decisions, as well as a review of literature regarding criminal law and related regulations. The findings of this research indicate that law enforcement against carding perpetrators is still hampered by limitations in existing laws and a lack of legal awareness regarding this type of criminal act. In case Number 845/Pid.Sus/2020/PT SBY, the court decided on a sentence that reflected efforts to overcome the financial and psychological impact of this criminal act, but there were still several discrepancies between the sanctions imposed and the losses experienced by the victim. This research concludes that shopping using someone else's credit card number and identity obtained illegally (carding) is a criminal act of theft within the framework of Article 362 of the Criminal Code and Article 363 of the Criminal Code as well as a criminal act of fraud under Article 378 of the Criminal Code, however, because this theft uses electronic media, the application is using Article 48 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 32 paragraph (2) Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning amendments to Law Number 11 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions. The judge's considerations in decision number 845/pid.sus/2020/pt sby stated that the elements of a criminal act as intended in article 48 paragraph (2) in conjunction with article 32 paragraph (2) of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments regarding Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions is appropriate and correct.
References
Achmad Irwan Hamzani. "Menggagas Indonesia Sebagai Negara Hukum yang Membahagiakan Rakyatnya." Yustisia, edisi 90 (September–Desember 2014).
C.S.T. Kansil dan Christine S.T. Kansil. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2011.
Dominikus Juju dan Feri Sualianta. Hitam Putih Facebook. Jakarta: PT Elex Media Komputindo, 2010.
Indradi dalam Mehda Zuraida. "Credit Card Fraud (Carding) dan Dampaknya Terhadap Perdagangan Luar Negeri Indonesia." Jurnal Analisis Hubungan Internasional, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Unair 4, no. 1 (Mei 2015).
Khadafi M. Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pencurian dengan Pemberatan. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2017.
Moeljatno. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 1993.
Muntoha. Negara Hukum Indonesia Pasca Perubahan UUD 1945. Yogyakarta: Kaukaba Dipantara, 2013.
Riko Nurgraha. "Perspektif Hukum Indonesia (Cyberlaw) Penanganan Kasus Cyber di Indonesia." Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Dirgantara Fakultas Hukum Universitas Dirgantara Marsekal Suryadarma 11, no. 2 (Maret 2021).
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 Tentang Informasi Dan Transaksi Elrektrronik
Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2004 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman Republik Indonesia.
Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP)
Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Nomor 845/PID.SUS/2020/PT SBY
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sugihartono, Bambang Widarto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
