The Ideal Punishment for Corporations that False the Brand of the Theory of Dignified Justice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v22i2.3346Abstract
The corporation is an organized collection of persons and/or wealth, whether it is a legal entity or non-legal entity [Article 1 point 1 of Supreme Court Regulation No. 13 of 2016). Corporations are established to seek profit / profit unlawfully. Marks are one of the intellectual property rights protected by Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications (Law 20/2016). Trademark rights holders are protected by Law 20/2016 from counterfeiting acts. This paper will discuss penalties both regulated in Law 20/2016 or will be regulated in Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code [KUHP (Law 1/2023)] concerning corporate punishment. The formulation of the problem raised is how is the ideal punishment for corporations that falsify the perspective brand of dignified justice theory? The research method used is the normative juridical method. The author uses secondary data in the form of primary legal material, secondary legal material, and tertiary. And the author uses qualitative analysis to come up with a conclusion. The result of the study, namely the theory of dignified justice, is a theory initiated by Teguh Prasetyo, Professor of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan, this theory is based on Pancasila and aims to humanize humans (nge wong ke wong-in Javanese). The Criminal Code (Law 1/2023) provides guidance on the requirements for corporations that can be criminally liable. Based on the Criminal Code (Law 1/2023), the criminal for corporations is the main crime in the form of fines, and additional crimes. Meanwhile, based on Law 20/2016, imprisonment and/or fines may be imposed, for example: sentenced to a maximum of 5 (five) years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of Rp2,000,000,000.00 (two billion rupiah). The ideal crime & in accordance with the theory of dignified justice for the corporation is the criminal fine, and destruction of goods from the counterfeited brand, as well as the revocation of licenses.
Downloads
References
Buku
Areif, Barda Nawawi. (2008). Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana (Perkembangan Penyusunan Konsep KUHP Baru), Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Harahap, M. Yahya, (1996). Tinjauan Merek Secara Umum dan Hukum Merek di Indonesia Berdasarkan Undang-undang No. 19 Tahun 1992. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Marzuki, P.M., (2005). Penelitian Hukum. Kencana, Bandung: Kencana.
Molcong, (2006). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif, Rosda Karya. Bandung: Rosda Karya.
Muladi dan Dwija Priyanto. (1991). Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi dalam Hukum Pidana, Bandung: STHB.
Muhammad, Abdul Kadir. (2007). Kajian Hukum Ekonomi Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual. Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Prasetyo, Teguh . (2015). Keadilan Bermartabat, Perspektif Teori Hukum. Bandung: Nusaamedia.
Rahardjo, Satjipto, (1986). Ilmu Hukum. Bandung: Alumni.
Rahmi, Jened. (2015). Hukum Merek Trademark Law. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
Sjahdeini, Sutan Remy, (2006). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: Grafitipers.
Suryodiningrat, R.M., (2013). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Merek. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita.
Susanto, I.S., (1995). Kriminologi. Semarang: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Diponegoro.
Utomo, Tomi Suryo. (2010). Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HKI) di Era Global. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Peraturan Perundang-undangan
Undang-undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana
Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis
Undang-undang No. 9 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pendanaan Terorisme
Peraturan Mahkamah Agung No. 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Tata Cara Penanganan Perkara Tindak Pidana oleh Korporasi
Jurnal
Esti, I Aryan. (2009). "Pemalsuan Merek dan Penegakan Hukumnya (Ditinjau dari Aspek Hukum Pidana)." Jurnal Wacana Hukum, vol. 8, no. 1, doi:10.33061/1.jwh.2009.8.1.322.
Lembaga Penyelidikan Ekonomi dan Masyarakat, Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia (LPEM-FEUI) bekerja sama dengan Masyarakat Indonesia Anti Pemalsuan (MIAP), Laporan Akhir Dampak Pemalsuan Terhadap Perekonomian Indonesia, (LPEM-FEUI, 2010).
Indra Rahmatullah. Desember 2014. Perlindungan Indikasi Geografis dalam Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Melalui Ratifikasi Perjanjian Lisabon. Jurnal Cita Hukum. Vol. II No.2. ISSN : 2356-1440. Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Siti Asfiyah. Oktober 2015. Perlindungan Hukum Potensi Indikasi Geografis Di Kabupaten Brebes Guna Pengembangan Ekonomi Masyarakat Lokal. Jurnal Idea Hukum, Vol.1 No.2. Magister Hukum Fakultas Hukum Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.
Tatty Ramli dan Yetti Sumiati. 2008. Impplikasi Pendaftaran Indikasi Geografis Terhadap Potensi Peningkatan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Masyarakat. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis. Bo.27 No.4.
Winda Risna Yessiningrum. 2015. Perlindungan Hukum Indikasi Geografis Sebagai Bagian Dari Hak Kekayaan Intelektual. Jurnal Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan IUS, Vol. III, No.7. p.45
Website
Merek. https://dgip.go.id/menu-utama/merek/pengenalan, diakses pada tanggal 23 Juni 2021.
Wisnu Andebar. (2018). “MIAP: Pemalsuan Produk Telah Merugikan hingga Rp 65,1 triliun”, artikel tanggal 15 Nov 2018, diakses di https://otomotif.tempo.co/read/1146578/miap-pemalsuan-produk-telah-merugikan-hingga-rp-651-triliun/full&view=ok.
Temanggung Provinsi Jawa Tengah. Diponegoro Law Journal. Vol.6, No.2. p.2. https://ejournal3.undip.ac.id/index.php/dlr/article/view/19575
Yuni Zanesty Hutapea. 2020. Analysis of Factors Affecting Demand For Gayo Robusta Coffee (Coffee Camephora). Universitas Medan Area. http://repository.uma.ac.id/handle/123456789/12125
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Rizky Karo Karo, Debora Pasaribu, Irene Puteri A.S Sinaga, Arnoldus Pawe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
