The Relevance of Fraud Criminal Offenses in a Situation of Default in Debt Agreements

Abstract

This research aims to study and analyze the divergence of default with fraud in debt agreements. In this writing, the writer uses a normative juridical method with research specifications in the form of descriptive analysis. Based on the discussion, it is concluded that the parameter that differentiates default from criminal acts of fraud is that default is seen from the good faith of the parties, while criminal acts of fraud are motivated by malicious intent (mens rea) in owning an object (goods) belonging to another person and by seeing whether there is element of intention not to fulfill his achievements. Acts of pure default and criminal acts of fraud also have different resolutions, namely default cases are resolved through civil lawsuits where if the lawsuit is won then the settlement will be in the form of returning the rights of the plaintiff or defendant, depending on the judge's conviction. Meanwhile, the criminal act of fraud begins with a report to the authorized official (police), is prosecuted by the public prosecutor, and is decided by a judge. The punishment was in the form of corporal punishment. Insofar as one of the parties fulfills the element of fraud, even though the party has made achievements during the investigation process, this does not eliminate the criminal element from his actions.