| dc.description.abstract | The imposition of criminal liability for the disbursement of non-performing loans by the State-Owned Bank has
limitations that cause legal uncertainty. The existence of the legal uncertainty leads to the blurred nature of the
scope of legal validity of State Owned Bank liability for non-performing loans that have been disbursed. The
extent of the notion of state finance contained in the Corruption Eradication Act is not followed with the
understanding of the state financial losses itself. The legal consequence of such enforcement is giving criminal
sanction of corruption toward the bank on part/whole ownership of the shares owned by the government, for the
disbursement of non-performing loans. The irony is that there is no limitative restriction in the Banking Act
concerning banks as perpetrators or victims of crime, so that criminal liability can only be charged to members
of the Board of Commissioners, Directors, or Bank Officers as breakers and/or originators of non-performing
loans. Bank as an institution is free from the imposition of criminal sanctions, whereas institutionally, banking
institution is also a legal subject. The principle of the criminal law that no action can be criminalized without any
error or guilt, should be used as an effort to answer legal issues in constructing the law in order to discover the
novelty of meaning and argumentation in the legislation as the material for the legal making or legal repairing of
the existing legislation with the intention of establishing legal certainty in the field of national Banking Act. | en_US |
