., I Made Minggu Widyantara., I Made Aditya Mantara Putra

This research investigates the crime of embezzlement of customer funds by bank employees within the

Eradication Law (Law No. 20 of 2001), while secondary sources include academic literature, legal journals, and

expert opinions.The findings demonstrate that embezzlement is regulated under Articles 372–377 of the KUHP,

which stipulate penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment based on the circumstances of the act. However,

there exists a fundamental inconsistency between these provisions and those of the Corruption Eradication Law.

While the KUHP provides relatively lenient sanctions with a maximum imprisonment of four years, the

Corruption Law prescribes far more severe punishments, including life imprisonment and substantial fines. This

disparity creates ambiguity, weakens the coherence of the legal system, and results in uneven law enforcement

in banking embezzlement cases. The study concludes that harmonization of Indonesian criminal law is urgently

needed to provide legal certainty and ensure justice. Strengthening banking oversight, improving ethical

standards through employee training, and ensuring transparent judicial processes are also necessary to restore

justice within the legal system, where equality before the law represents a concrete manifestation of fairness.

The state is therefore responsible for establishing non-discriminatory laws applicable to all its people [(Haykal

& Kosasih, 2021, p. 1)].

The fifth principle of Pancasila, namely “social justice for all Indonesian people”, embodies values that serve as

the primary goal of public life. This concept of justice includes both prosperity and welfare, which represent the

nation’s aspirations in fulfilling the physical and spiritual needs of society [(Santoso, 2014, p. 86)].

The banking sector plays a vital role in a nation’s economy as a financial intermediary. In practice, almost all

human activities are interconnected with financial transactions. Alongside technological advancement, financial

services have become increasingly digitized, facilitating activities such as deposits, loans, payments,

trade transactions, and other financial interactions [(Hasan, 2014, p. 4)].

valuables [(Abdullah & Wahjusaputri, 2018, p. 2)].

Safeguarding customer funds deposited in banks constitutes a crucial legal concern. In practice, however, such

funds may be lost either due to embezzlement committed by bank employees or through external breaches by

unauthorized parties. Given the legal relationship between the customer and the bank, embezzlement perpetrated

by employees represents a serious issue within the domain of banking crimes [(Djumhana, 2006, p. 590)].

Bank employees, entrusted with collecting customer deposits and managing administrative or bookkeeping

processes, may unlawfully exploit this position by misappropriating customer credit card information for

personal gain. Such misconduct is classified as a criminal act within the banking sector and is subject to sanctions

under applicable banking laws. Law, therefore, plays a critical role in regulating the financial industry to both

address and prevent violations committed by individuals [(Kristian & Gunawan, 2018, p. 4)].

conjunction with Article 372 of the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP).

From the foregoing discussion, the researcher identifies a normative gap between Article 2(1) and Article 3 of

the Corruption Eradication Law (UU Tipikor) and Article 372 of the KUHP. Article 2(1) stipulates imprisonment

for a minimum of four years and a maximum of twenty years, along with fines ranging from IDR 200 million to

IDR 1 billion. Article 3 prescribes punishment of life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a minimum of one year

and a maximum of twenty years, with fines between IDR 50 million and IDR 1 billion. In contrast, Article 372

of the KUHP provides a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to IDR 200 million. These

inconsistencies highlight the lack of coherence between the relevant provisions.

Accordingly, this study seeks to address the following research problem: How is the crime of embezzlement of

customer funds by bank employees reg Research Method

The legal sources in this study are divided into two categories: primary and secondary sources. Primary legal

sources include statutory regulations that serve as the legal basis for criminal acts in the banking sector.

Secondary legal sources consist of legal theories, law journals, scholarly writings, and expert opinions related to

the subject matter.

The technique of collecting primary legal materials was conducted through documentation and note-taking of

legal sources to be analyzed in the discussion of this study. For secondary legal materials, the collection process

involved compiling various references relevant to the research topic, followed by selection, classification, and

comparison with existing facts. Expert opinions were also incorporated, both through direct and indirect

quotations.

order to arrive at comprehensive conclusions.ulated under Indonesian positive law?

appropriates part or all of another person’s property without consent. Although such property may initially come

into the perpetrator’s possession lawfully and without criminal conduct, the act of unlawful appropriation

constitutes a legal violation [(Kansil & Kansil, 2000, p. 252)].

The term delik originates from the Dutch word strafbaarfeit, which was later adapted into several Indonesian

terms such as delict, delik, and tindak pidana (criminal act) by Indonesian legal scholars. The term delik was

used in Emergency Law No. 7 of 1953, which regulated the Prosecution, Investigation, and Adjudication of

Economic Crimes [(Chazawi, 2002, pp. 67–68)].

Peter Mahmud Marzuki defines embezzlement as the misuse of entrusted authority to manage or safeguard

money or goods for unlawful purposes [(Marzuki, 2005, p. 312)]. For an act to qualify as embezzlement, several

conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the act is intentional, (2) it involves control over a property, (3) it is unlawful,

embezzlement, with a maximum imprisonment of four years or a fine of up to IDR 900.”

Article 373 KUHP: This article regulates petty embezzlement. It provides that “embezzlement of property valued

at no more than IDR 250, if committed by a person not specified in Article 372, shall be punishable by a

maximum imprisonment of three months or a fine not exceeding IDR 600.”

Article 374 KUHP: This provision concerns embezzlement committed by a person with a specific employment

or trust relationship with the victim. It states: “anyone who, by reason of employment or payment, possesses and

subsequently embezzles property, shall be punishable by a maximum imprisonment of five years.”

Article 375 KUHP: This article applies to embezzlement committed by individuals in positions of authority over

property due to their employment or office. It stipulates: “anyone who embezzles property under their lawful

control not through crime, but by virtue of position, employment, or trust, shall be convicted of embezzlement

may be imposed, including the revocation of rights as stipulated in Article 35, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.”

person’s property that has come into the perpetrator’s possession without prior criminal conduct. When such acts

are committed by bank employees, they not only breach the trust inherent in the employee–customer relationship

but also undermine public confidence in the banking sector as a whole.Furthermore, discrepancies between the

provisions of the Corruption Eradication Law (Law No. 20 of 2001) and Article 372 of the KUHP reveal

inconsistencies in the sentencing framework. While the Corruption Law imposes severe penalties, including life

imprisonment and substantial fines, Article 372 prescribes significantly lighter sanctions. This inconsistency

creates legal uncertainty and poses challenges to the uniform enforcement of justice in cases of banking

embezzlement.

1. Aditya Mantara Putra, I. M., Widyantara, I. M. M., & Dirgantara, S. N. (2024). Tindak Pidana

25. Pasek Diantha, 2016, Metodelogi Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum,

Cetakan 3, Prenadamedia Group, Jakarta Timur.