PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA ATAS PELANGGARAN PRINSIP KEHATI-HATIAN PEMBERIAN KREDIT DALAM TINDAK PIDANA PERBANKAN: (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta 23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI)

As a financial institution, banks provide products offered to the public such asdemand deposits, savings, deposits and loans. In relation to efforts to develop thecountry's economy, it can be said that the most influential bank product is credit. Incarrying out these credit business activities, banks are represented by bank officialsproviding credit products and or services to the public. Bank officials have a veryimportant role in the implementation of credit business activities because they canaffect the provision of credit, which is often misused by bank officials, such asviolations of general principles that are the main basis for banks in providing credit.One example is in the case of the decision of the DKI Jakarta High Court Number23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI which is a banking crime case. Violations committed bybank officials against the precautionary principle occurred at PT. Bank Yudha Baktito its debtors where bank officials PT. Bank Yudha Bakti does not carry out itsduties and responsibilities by applying the principle of prudence in providingcredit.This study aims to identify legal accountability for banking crimes in thedecision of the DKI Jakarta High Court Number 23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI andalso to find out how to solve the problems of banking criminal acts according toLaw Number 10 1998 against the Decision of the DKI Jakarta District High CourtNumber 23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI,The type of research conducted is legal research with normative juridical byconducting a study of criminal liability in banking crimes. The data collectionmethod used is the library method and the case approach method, then the dataobtained is analyzed descriptively qualitatively so as to reveal the expected resultsand conclusions on the problem.The results of the study indicate that the liability for banking crimes in DecisionNumber 23/PID.SUS/2019/PT.DKI which states that the defendant a.n NingsihSuciati as the former Director of Wholesale Banking of Bank Yudha Bakti has beenlegally and convincingly proven guilty of committing a banking crime. That in thedecision only the defendant was convicted because the actions committed by thedefendant were carried out in a structured manner as if his actions were true so thatit was clear that there was an intention (meansrea) to approve the credit proposedby Goutam Shamdepchand even though the requirements for granting creditfacilities had not been met, as well as efforts to settlement of violations of theapplication of the prudential principle of lending to the constraints of bankingcrimes. The provision of credit by a bank carries risks, so that in its implementation,banks must pay attention to sound credit principles.Keywords : Accountability, Banking, Prudential Principle