Abstract

This research aims to analyze regulation of the criminal act of forgery of letters in Article 263 of the Criminal Code and to analyze the process of proving the criminal act of forgery of letters in Article 263 of the Criminal Code. By using normative legal research methods. The research results show that the construction of Article 263 is a formal offense which focuses on the act and not the result. This can be seen from the phrase "can cause harm" in the formulation of the article. This formal formulation certainly has implications for the ease of proof in the prosecution field, where the public prosecutor does not need to factually prove the consequences of the loss. On the one hand, the ease of proving criminal acts of letter forgery will make it easier for law enforcement officials to process various kinds of letter forgery cases which of course can reduce criminal acts of letter forgery that occur in society. Law enforcement against the criminal act of forgery of documents is an action that begins with the process of inquiry, inquiry, prosecution and examination of the case in court in order to prove whether or not the criminal act of forgery is proven based on evidence including witness statements, expert statements, letters, instructions and statements of the accused. that it is clear and convincing that the defendants, on behalf of Mirate and Sulaiman, have been legally proven to have violated Article 263 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code. According to the author, the Praya District Court judge's decision has taken into consideration all the witnesses and evidence which are the basis for considering a case.

Concepts :

Access to Document

SDGs

Citations by Year