Put a case of a catfish vendor may be charged with the Corruption Act that appears during the Constitutional Court session

Jakarta – The provisions of the section in the Eradisation of Corruption Act (Corruption Act) are highlighted. Legal experts said one of the content of the article could do the Catfish Pecel seller on the sidewalk. Why? It was transferred by legal expert Chandra M Hamzah in the essential test session of the Act Number 31 of 1999 regarding the eradication of corruption crimes (corruption law) as amended by the Act 20/2001, reported by the Constitutional Court (MK) website (6/20/2025). The Agenda of the hearing to hear the DPR statement, as well as the statement of experts and witnesses of the Applicant case 142/Puu-XXII/2024. This case tests Article 2 paragraph (1) and section 3 of the Corruption Act contains provisions that act on the Act against the Act that leads to state losses and benefits certain parties. The applicant is Syahril Japarin, Kukuh Kertasafari and Nur Alam. The applicant offered Chandra M Hamzah, who is also a former Deputy Chairman of the KPK 2007-2009. Browse to continue with the content Chandra initially describes the content of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Act, the following sounds: “Every person who is against the law who has committed an act of enriching him or another person or a corporation that can harm the country’s finances or the country’s economy was sentenced to a life imprisonment for a minimum of 4 (four) a maximum of 20 (twenty) years and a maximum of RP. (one) year and a maximum of 20 (twenty) years and a fine of RP. 50,000,000 (fifty million rupia) and a maximum of RP. 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah) ‘. Chandra explained that the content of the article could cause problems. He mentioned the formulation of the content of the ambiguous article and could violate the principle of Lex Certa and Lex Stricta. Stricta, “Chandra said. Catfish Pecel Seller on the sidewalk can be charged photos: Getty Images/iStockphoto/Michał Chodyra Chandra explains the contents of section 2 paragraph (1) of the corruption law that is misinterpreted, the seller of Lele Pecel can be imposed on the Corruption Act. By selling on the sidewalk that must be used by pedestrians. of corruption itself. Then the second, review of section 3 of the Corruption Act by replacing the replacement of ‘civil servant’ and ‘organizers’,’ said. “Because it is indeed intended for civil servants and then eliminates phrases’ which could harm the country’s finances and the country’s economy as’ Uncac recommendations, ‘he added. During the hearing, the file also offered financial expert Amien Sunaryadi, who is also a former deputy chairman of the KPK for the period 2003. The field bribery was. Amien said. The legal opinion must be accompanied by a clear basis and legal reasons. The right to theory in the law should be, not personal opinions. Right and legal reasons that are relationships, “he added. Tanak refers to the principle of the law of notoors in criminal law, which is a fact that is known to be known no longer. For the actions of Catfish Pecel sellers on the sidewalk, it will lead to the loss of government financing or the country’s economy, “he said. If a seller of a Catfish Pecel is considered section 2 of the Corruption Act, it must be questioned whether it is true to cause state finances or the loss of the country’s economy. Corruption -offender is not categorized. Similarly with section 3 of the Corruption Act, “said Johanis (YGS/YGS) Hogeng Awards.