RATIO DECI DENDI TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA PEMERASAN DAN/ATAU PENGANCAMAN OLEH PENAGIH PINJAMAN ONLINE ILEGAL MELALUI WHATSAPP DI TINJAU BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG INFORMASI DAN TRANSAKSI ELEKTRONIK NOMOR 19 TAHUN 2016 (Analisis Putusan Nomor 438/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Jkt.Utr)

Abstract

Blackmail is taking advantage of other people or in the sense of asking for money with threats, people who carry out this act are called blackmailers. Blackmail means the act or act of blackmailing another person to obtain benefits through threats or force. Meanwhile, what is meant by threatening is stating an intention, a plan to do something that is detrimental, difficult, troublesome or injurious to another party. Fintech is a platform that connects customers to access, carry out transactions and obtain financial services more practically and quickly. This service is one of the infrastructure tools for communication between the Defendant Dede Supardi and the victim who is charged with a crime via WhatsApp chat. This research aims to answer legal issues relating to the Judge's Ratio Decidend and the Implementation of material law against perpetrators of criminal acts of extortion and/or threats via WhatsApp. To answer this research problem, the research uses a type of normative legal research with a statutory approach, court decisions and case approaches. The data used is secondary data in the form of primary, secondary and tertiary materials, obtained through library research or document study. The results of this research show that the judge's considerations decided that the Defendant should only be sentenced to 1 (one) year in prison, in accordance with the provisions of Article 45 paragraph (4) in conjunction with Article 27 paragraph (4) of Republic of Indonesia Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Republic of Indonesia Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions, which is different from the threat of a sentence of 6 years in prison, so this decision is unfair in passing judgment against the Defendant. Because the Public Prosecutor should be able to file an appeal for the sake of law and justice, for the victim and the community but this is not done. Then, in the application of material law, it is actually legally correct and appropriate, but there is a legal gap, considering that the verdict against perpetrators of criminal acts of extortion and threats seems to be a light sentence, so it does not provide a threatening snare as a deterrent to other potential perpetrators. There needs to be a court decision that is much more severe and frightening and does not appear to lighten the defendant's sentence as a form of preventing the repetition of the same crime in the future.