Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1699/K/PID/2025 Tentang Tindak Pidana Penipuan Perspektif Hukum Pidana Islam

Abstract

Fraud is one of the criminal acts that frequently occurs in economic and trade activities within society. The emergence of habitual fraud through the repeated purchase of goods without full payment has become a serious concern in Indonesian criminal law, particularly as regulated under Article 379a of the Indonesian Penal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana/KUHP). This study analyzes the legal considerations of the panel of judges in Supreme Court Decision Number 1699 K/Pid/2025 concerning fraud, the legal impact of the decision, and the proportionality of the sanction imposed, situates each of these three issues within its direct successor provision under the newly enacted Penal Code (Law Number 1 of 2023) — namely Article 497, which specifically retains and even strengthens the habitual-fraud offense with a higher maximum penalty — and evaluates each of them, in turn, from the perspective of Islamic criminal law using the Qur'an, Hadith, ijma', qiyas, istihsan, istishab, and other subsidiary legal sources. The research uses a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The results indicate that the judges based their decision on the repeated pattern of transactions across two suppliers, the absence of genuine good faith to settle the debt, and the substantial loss suffered by the victim; this reasoning is affirmed by the Qur'anic prohibition of consuming another's property unlawfully, the Hadith on ghisy, ijma' on the discretionary authority of the judge over ta'zir, and qiyas extending the classical prohibitions of ghabn and najsy to modern habitual trade fraud. Under Article 497, the maximum penalty rises from four to five years alongside an alternative fine of category V (up to Rp500,000,000), meaning the sentence actually imposed would represent a smaller proportion of the applicable maximum, a critical finding this study interrogates rather than merely notes. The decision's legal impact, while strengthening protection for small traders, risks overextending criminal law into essentially civil relationships, a risk that maslahah mursalah and sadd al-dzari'ah help to both justify and simultaneously discipline. The sentence imposed omits any order of restitution, a gap that istihsan and the fiqh maxim "al-dararu yuzal" indicate should be corrected, particularly given that Article 497's fine alternative could plausibly be redirected toward victim compensation. The study concludes with a critical assessment identifying specific weaknesses in the decision's reasoning under both legal systems.