Email this article 
PELAKSANAAN RESTITUSI BAGI KORBAN TINDAK PIDANA PENIPUAN INVESTASI DENGAN SKEMA ROBOT TRADING: STUDI KASUS DI LEMBAGA PERLINDUNGAN SAKSI DAN KORBAN (LPSK)
Abstract
Fraudulent investment schemes using the Viral Blast Global robot-trading platform caused substantial financial losses and raised legal problems in fulfilling victims’ rights to restitution. This study aims to analyze the implementation of restitution for victims of fraudulent investment crimes using a robot-trading scheme, as well as the obstacles faced by the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) in fulfilling victims’ rights. This research employs an empirical juridical method with case, structural, and statutory approaches based on the KUHAP, Law Number 31 of 2014, Government Regulation Number 35 of 2020, Government Regulation Number 7 of 2018, and Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2022. The data were obtained from interviews at LPSK and secondary legal materials, including official documents and the Surabaya District Court Decision Number 1466/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Sby. The findings show that LPSK has carried out administrative verification, substantive examination, the establishment of the Compensation Assessment Team, and the submission of restitution before the court decision. However, the implementation of restitution faces obstacles in the form of overlapping execution authority, difficulties in proving victims’ financial losses, and low victim participation. The analysis also shows that the court ruling assigning execution duties to LPSK creates disharmony with the existing legal framework, since execution should legally fall under the authority of the prosecutor. This study concludes that restitution implementation in the Viral Blast Global case has been carried out, but it still requires regulatory harmonization, clearer execution mechanisms, and a more adaptive evidentiary framework for digital-based crimes.
Keywords: Restitution; Victims’ Rights; Fraud Offenses; Robot Trading; LPSK.Full Text:
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)References
Buku
Irwansyah, Penelitian Hukum, Yogyakarta: Mirra Buana Media, 2021.
John Kenedi, Buku Perlindungan saksi dan Korban (Studi Perlindungan Hukum Dan Kejahatan dalam Sistem Peradilan di Indonesia), Pustaka Pelajar, 2020.
Zainuddin Ali, Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta, Sinar Grafika, 2017.
Peraturan Perundangan
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana
Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 1981 (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana), Lembaran Negara Tahun 1981 Nomor 76, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 3209.
Undang-undang Nomor 31 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2006 Tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban, Lembaran Negara Tahun 2014 Nomor 307, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 5619.
Undang-undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban, Lembaran Negara Tahun 2006 Nomor 64, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 4635.
Undang-undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 Tentang Informasi Dan Transaksi Elektronik, Lembaran Negara Tahun 2016 Nomor 251, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 5952.
Undang-undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik, Lembaran Negara Tahun 2024 Nomor 1, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 6905.
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia No. 7 Tahun 2018 tentang Pemberian Kompensasi, Restitusi, dan Bantuan Kepada Saksi dan Korban, Lembaran Negara Tahun 2018 Nomor 19, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 6182.
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 35 Tahun 2020 tentang Perubahan atas Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 7 Tahun 2018 tentang Pemberian Kompensasi, Restitusi, dan Bantuan kepada Saksi dan Korban, Lembaran Negara Tahun 2020 Nomor 74, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 6487.
Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2022 Tentang Tata Cara Penyelesaian Permohonan Dan Pemberian Restitusi Dan Kompensasi Kepada Korean Tindak Pidana, Berita Negara Tahun 2022 Nomor 130.
Putusan Pengadilan Nomor 1466/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Sby.
Jurnal
Gunawan Widjaja, "Public Understanding Of Robotic Trading In The Context Of Trading Law: Strengths And Weaknesses." Webology 19, no. 1 (2022): 6876-6891. Retrieved from: https://jim.usk.ac.id/sejarah/article/view/29758
Heather Strang, Lawrence W. Sherman, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Daniel Woods, and Barak Ariel. “Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 9, no. 1 (2013): 1–59. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2013.12.
Irawan Adi Wijaya and Hari Purwadi. "Pemberian Restitusi Sebagai Perlindungan Hukum Korban Tindak Pidana." Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan Ekonomi 6, no. 2 (2018): 93-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/hpe.v6i2.17728
Jeff Latimer, Craig Dowden, and Danielle Muise. “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis.” The Prison Journal 85, no. 2 (2005): 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969.
Kathleen Daly. “What Is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question.” Victims & Offenders 11, no. 1 (2016): 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1107797
Saputra, Trias, and Yudha Adi Nugraha. "Pemenuhan Hak Restitusi: Upaya Pemulihan Korban Tindak Pidana." Krtha Bhayangkara 16, no. 1 (2022): 66-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31599/krtha.v16i1.1190
Syahrijal Syakur, "Perlindungan Hukum Korban Fintech Robot Trading Melalui Perampasan Aset Pelakunya." Majalah Hukum Nasional 52, no. 2 (2022): 225-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33331/mhn.v52i2.178
Website
https://www.metrotvnews.com/play/KRXCaDJO-5-kasus-penipuan-robot-trading-di-indonesia-sepanjang-2022-2023 accessed on 15 November 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36987/jiad.v14i2.8575
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
<
