Employee Criminal Liability for the Prudential Principle of a Bank

Teuku Fathir Mustafa

and Bismar Nasution

PhD in Law Program, Graduate School Universitas Sumatera Utara (USU), Medan, Indonesia

Keywords: Criminal liability; Banking; Bank caution.

Abstract: In conducting business in the banking sector in Indonesia, it is based on economic democracy by using the

precautionary principle. The implementation of financial transaction activities is important to apply the

precautionary principle in order to minimize the banking risks. Regulations regarding the application of the

precautionary principle of banks made by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as a rule maker in the

Financial Services Sector. The regulation does not contain criminal sanctions, but only administrative and

compensation sanctions. This study will examine and analyze: criminal liability for bank employees who do

not implement the bank's prudential principles. In this research, normative legal research was carried out

using secondary data as legal material sourced from existing banking cases, particularly at the Lubuk Pakam

District and Medan District Courts. In the event of a violation of the regulations regarding the application of

the precautionary principle of the bank, the perpetrators are only subject to administrative and compensation

sanctions in accordance with regulations issued by the FSA, not criminal sanctions based on the Criminal

Code. Law Enforcement Officials must distinguish between violations of bank internal rules and violations

of criminal law.

1 INTRODUCTION

Liability arises as a result of actions. The types of

liabilities that exist consist of 3 (three)

responsibilities such as administrative responsibility,

compensation, and criminal liability. Likewise with

actions, consisting of administrative actions, actions

that cause harm, and actions that violate criminal

law (Agustina, Rosa., 2003).

In carrying out duties in the banking sector, each

employee is required to carry out banking principles.

These principles emphasize the legal relationship

between banks and depositors are fiduciary,

confidential, prudential principle, and know your

customer principles (Rozali, Asep., 2011) (Apriani,

R., and Hartanto, 2019).

All banking principles are regulated in statutory

regulations and the implemention of the regulations

tend to be administrative mechanistic in that they put

forward procedural aspects (Apriani, R., and

Hartanto, 2019).

Indonesian banks in conducting their business

are normally based on economic democracy by

using the precautionary principle. This is important

to be applied in carrying out financial transaction

activities in order to minimize banking risks that can

occur. Banks must understand and recognize the

risks that may arise in carrying out their business

activities, so they can know when these risks arise in

order to take appropriate actions (Idroes and

Sugiarto, 2006).

Banks in carrying out business functions and

activities that collect and distribute public funds are

required to apply the precautionary principle to

protect funds entrusted to the public. This principle

is stipulated in Law No. 10 of 1998 that

Amendments to No. 7 of 1992 concerning Banking.

Implementation of the precautionary principle in the

banking world, is an obligation for banks to pay

attention and implement it, including for their

employees.

Banking in Indonesia has implemented internet

banking, there are several potential holes or security

holes in the technical implementation of the internet

banking service itself. Users receive attacks in the

form of viruses that can tap, change, delete, or

falsify data (PINs, credit card numbers, and secret

keys) (Rahardjo, B., 2001). According to Karen

Furst, in the journal entitled: "Internet Banking:

Development and Prospects" in the Program on

Information Resources Policy at Harvard University,

explains that internet banking is a form of internet

media use by banks to promote and simultaneously

Mustafa, T. and Nasution, B.

Employee Criminal Liability for the Prudential Principle of a Bank.

DOI: 10.5220/0010294200003051

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies (CESIT 2020), pages 28-34

ISBN: 978-989-758-501-2

conduct online transactions, both from products it is

conventional and new. With internet banking, every

customer can carry out electronic transaction

activities at any time by accessing them via personal

computers, cellphones, or other wireless media

(Furst, K., 2002).

In addition, the integrity of bank employees is

often tested in relation to dealing with customers.

Related to the integrity of bank employees, in the

much-cited English decision in Tournier v. National

Province & Union Bank of England (1924) 1 KB

461 (CA), the court not only recognized the

existence of the duty, but also listed a number of

exceptions to the rule. In certain circumstances the

bank is relieved of its duty of confidentiality and

secrecy and either has a duty or is allowed to

disclosure information about the affairs of its client.

The court classified these exceptions under four

heads: 1) where disclosure is under compulsions by

law; 2) where there is a duty to the public to

disclosure; 3) where the interests of the bank require

disclosure; and 4) where the disclosure is made by

the express or implied consent of the client (Schulze,

H., 2007).

Based on the data, there are banking cases taht

involving employees as a result of ruling out the

implementation of the banking principles. The

examples of cases that have occurred are: (i)

Decision of the Lubuk Pakam District Court No. 964

/ Pid.B / 2015 / PN.Lbp., Dated August 19, 2015.

The court sentences an employee at the Mandiri

Bank Lubuk Pakam Branch with a prison sentence

of 1 (one) year 6 (six) months since it was proven

legally and convincingly guilty of committing

"criminal acts using fake letters" as referred to in

Article 263 paragraph (2) jo. Article 55 paragraph

(1) of the Criminal Code 1st; (ii) Decision of the

Lubuk Pakam District Court No. 1632 / Pid.Sus /

2017 / PN.Lbp., Dated October 18, 2017, which

sentenced a person in BPR Nusa Galang Makmur

employee to 6 (six) years in prison and a fine of Rp.

100 million since it has been legally and

convincingly proven to have committed "a criminal

offense to make a false record in a document carried

out continuously" as stipulated in Article 49

paragraph (1) letter a of Law No. 7 of 1992

concerning Banking as amended by Law No. 10 of

1998 jo. Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal

Code; (iii) Decision of the Medan District Court No.

541 / Pid.B / 2015 / PN.Mdn., Dated August 5, 2015

jo. RI Supreme Court Decision No. 216K / PID /

2016, dated June 6, 2016, which has freed

unscrupulous employees who were charged with

committing "fraud" as referred to in Article 378 jo.

Article 56: 1 of the Criminal Code; and so forth.

Based on the three above cases examples of

cases above, the problem that often occurs is that

bank employees who are under pressure against

operational targets, often ignoring the precautionary

principle of banks to achieve the fulfillment of these

targets. Banking in overcoming this problem issued

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), but the

regulation is administrative and mechanistic. SOPs

do not guarantee that legal problems do not occur.

Examples of such cases are the non-implementation

of banking principles, particularly the precautionary

principle of banks by bank employees.

If there is an act that violates the Banking SOP,

then it can only be categorized as an administrative

act and an act that causes loss. The responsibility is

also just administrative and compensation. Bank

employees who have violated SOPs based on the

principle of prudence, in practice are held to account

for criminal liability. In fact, the banking regulation

or SOP does not contain criminal sanctions, only

administrative sanctions and compensation or

compensation.

2 METHOD

This research is a descriptive normative legal

research. The data used was sourced from secondary

data as legal material which collected using library

research techniques. Data were analyzed using

qualitative analysis methods. Secondary data in the

form of court decisions in the form legal material

were obtained from the Lubuk Pakam District Court

and Medan District Court. In tracing examples of

cases originating from these court decisions, the

views of law enforcement officials regarding the

precautionary principle were found:

Bank employees are representatives, acting for and

on behalf of the bank, so they are required to carry

out the principle of prudence in carrying out their

daily duties.

The principle of prudence that is not implemented

will raises a legal problem and losses to customers.

Legal issues against actors who incidentally bank

employees are problems with the bank's internal

parties themselves, and with customers. In the case

of legal problems with the bank's internal side, the

bank employee as the offender is asked for

administrative responsibility and compensation,

while legal issues with the customer are often held

accountable criminal.

Employee Criminal Liability for the Prudential Principle of a Bank

There are no criminal sanctions in the bank's

internal regulations as Standard Operating

Procedures, making law enforcement officials use

criminal law which should be used as a last resort

(ultimum remedium) in resolving a legal problem.

The inability of law enforcement officers (the Police

and Prosecutors' Office) to use banking legal

instruments to uncover criminal cases. The articles

used are often sourced from the Criminal Code only.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Second Section

The difference between unlawful acts in the context

of criminal law and civil law is more emphasized on

differences in the nature of criminal law that is

public while private law is private. For that reason,

as a reference: The differences between criminal

(against the law) and civil actions is that according

to their nature as public law. With a criminal

offense, there are violated public interests (as well as

possibly individual interests), whereas by civil law,

the violated is only personal interests (Fuady, M.,

2010).

Civil cases will not be able to turn into a criminal

case. If there is a change in the civil case in the

process which is followed up at the judiciary as a

criminal offense, this does not mean the position of

the case has changed. The reason for the emergence

of criminal offenses which processed is nothing but

basically found elements of a criminal act that does

occur in civil cases that are being prosecuted, in the

case of intention (mens rea) and deeds (actus reus)

that violate the elements of criminal acts (Julisman,

2017).

According to Julisman who gave an example

with the use of checks and blank giro as collateral

for debt in business transactions, it can be drawn a

common thread that acts against the law in a civil

context and acts against the law in a criminal context

clearly have differences. The difference lies in the

"intention" (mens rea) of the perpetrators, whether

the actions can be categorized as having violated the

provisions of the articles in the Criminal Code, or

not. To determine a person's "intention", one must

look at the series of actions that he does whether or

not he meets the elements of a criminal offense

(Julisman, 2017). Based on the above description,

the difference between unlawful acts in a civil

context and acts against the law in a criminal context

lies in their nature.

3.2 Criminal Liability

According to law, responsibility is a consequence of

the consequences of a person's freedom regarding

his or her actions related to ethics or morals in

carrying out an act (Notoatmojo, Soekidjo., 2010)

(Triwulan, Titik., And Shinta Febrian, 2010). The

criminal liability according to George P. Fletcher is

“the question of attribution is resolved under an

entirely distinct set of norms, which are directedd

not to the class of the potential violators, but to the

judges and jurors charged with the task of assesing

whether individuals are liable for their wrongful

acts” (Fletcher, George P., 2000).

Criminal liability in common law and civil law

systems is generally formulated negatively. That is,

in Indonesian criminal law (like other civil law

systems) the law actually formulates the conditions

that can cause the maker not to be accounted for

(Abidin, Andi Zainal., 1983). Thus, what is

regulated are conditions that can cause the maker not

to be convicted (strafuitsluitingsgronden), which for

the most part is the reason for erasure. Whereas in

the practice of justice in common law countries,

various "reasons for general defense or general

excusing of liability are accepted (Huda, Chairul.,

2006).

In addition, criminal liability in the common law

system is related to mens rea. Criminal liability is

based on a mental state that is as a guilty mind.

Guilty mind implies that it is a subjective mistake,

that someone is found guilty because the creator is

considered to have the wrong mind, so that person

must be responsible Criminal liability is imposed on

the maker and must be punished. No guilty mind

means that there is no criminal liability and the

perpetrator does not need to be convicted (Chand,

Hari, 1994).

Errors as part of mens rea are also considered as

a form of violation of rules or regulations. Every

person who violates the law is responsible for what

has been done. Mistakes as an element of

accountability in this view make a guarantee for

someone and make control of one's freedom against

others. The existence of this guarantee makes a

person will be protected from the actions of others

who violate the law, and as a control because

everyone who violates the criminal law is burdened

with criminal liability (Ashworth, Andrew., and

Jeremy Horder, 2009).

CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies

3.3 Personnel Accountability in Bank's

Prudential Principles

The relationship between banks and customers is

based on the fiduciary principle (Explanation of

Article 29 paragraph (3) and (4) of the Banking

Law) and the Bank is a fiduciary financial

institution. The Bank has a very noble mission and

vision as an institution whose duty is to carry out the

mandate of national development in achieving

improvement in the standard of living of the people,

as stated by Nindyo Pramono (Pramono, N., 1999).

Hirsanudin stated that the relationship between

banks and customers is based on fiduciary

relationships where banks must not only pay

attention to the interests of the bank, but also the

interests of customers both depositors and users of

funds. Fiduciary obligations can arise because of a

contract and also because of a relationship between

two parties. The bank has a relationship with its

customers so that if they practice unsafe and

unhealthy practices, the bank can be sued for

violating fiduciary obligations (Hirsanudin, 2008)

(Pramono, N., 1999) (Sjahdeini, S.R., 1994).

The bank prudential principle must be

implemented by every employee. For example,

Decision of the Lubuk Pakam District Court No. 964

/ Pid.B / 2015 / PN.Lbp., Dated August 19, 2015,

states that bank employees as defendants do not

apply the precautionary principle in opening bank

customer accounts. Regulations regarding account

opening are regulated in SOPs at the bank. The

actions of the defendant who do not implement the

precautionary principle according to the SOP are

subject to administrative sanctions and

compensation. Meanwhile, the actions of the

defendant which had harmed the Nasabaha resulted

in the defendant being criminally prosecuted.

Based on the example of the case above, the

responsibility of bank employees in applying the

precautionary principle of the bank (related to

opening a bank account) is starting from filling out

the application form for opening a savings account

until its use in the form of a first deposit and use of

an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM).

Based on Article 10 of Bank Indonesia

Regulation No. 3/10 / PBI / 2001 concerning the

Application of Know Your Customer Principles,

banks are required to maintain a customer profile

that at least includes information on: a) Work or line

of business; b) Total income; c) Other accounts

owned; d) Normal transaction activities; and e) The

purpose of opening an account. The responsibility of

bank employees must also ensure that the data

provided by prospective customers is valid and

original data and does not belong to anyone else.

The purpose of using the account must also be

ensured not to conflict with applicable laws and

regulations.

Accountability of bank employees in opening

accounts can be in the form of: criminal,

administrative and civil liability. Criminal liability is

when an employee falsifies letters or puts false

information into account opening forms. Meanwhile,

related to administrative responsibilities is when

prospective customers only attach a personal identity

card receipt (PIC). When a PIC is obtained, bank

employees must follow it up by attaching a PIC that

has been issued by the relevant government agency.

In the case of civil liability, when there is an error in

the nominal input of the initial deposit, the bank

employee (who made a mistake) can correct it by

compensating the loss suffered by the customer.

3.4 Standard Operating Procedure of

Banking

The banking industry (bank) is one of the

transaction-intensive business sectors. These

transactions in practice carry many legal risks,

including general criminal, civil, banking and even

money laundering (Muktar, Bustari, et al., 2016).

Legal risks are consequences that must be faced by

banks in their business activities as contained in

Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 5/8/2003 concerning

Application of Risk Management for Commercial

Banks.

In an effort to realize transactions in the field of

savings that are legally safe, the Bank usually has

made a procedural technical provision or often

referred to as the Standard Operational Procedure. In

the SOP on savings, it is usually regulated in detail

and technically how the procedures and conditions

for opening, depositing, withdrawing, transferring,

RTGS to closing a savings.

Arrangement of transactions concerning savings

in SOP, requires "Bank Operations" in carrying out

transactions "must refer" to the relevant SOP.

Transactions must be carried out in accordance with

the terms and procedures specified in the SOP. SOP

is a provision that is forcing the implementation of a

particular transaction. Forcing does not mean that

the SOP must be implemented in full, without

exception. The meaning of "force" is that under

normal conditions SOPs must be carried out to the

maximum extent possible, whereas for certain

conditions, SOPs can be distorted or anticipated in

other ways. For example, in withdrawing or

Employee Criminal Liability for the Prudential Principle of a Bank

requesting a transfer of a savings that should have

been made by the account holder's customer, but

because of the absence, the savings account owner

could not come for the transaction, while the

customer requested that the transaction be

immediately carried out.

In the above conditions, the anticipation that can

be done is that the customer must appoint someone

to be their proxy in making transactions by

completing the specified requirements. Another step

that must be done is to ensure through direct

confirmation that the transaction was indeed

requested by the customer represented by their

proxy. Confirmations with customers should be

recorded and witnessed personally by the customer's

power of attorney, as well as other people besides

the bank employees who make the confirmation.

The purpose of these efforts is to avoid each party

not recognizing or running away from responsibility

for actions and actions taken in the future. SOP was

created not to inhibit transactions, but instead to help

smooth a transaction by regulating the rules of the

transaction. The confirmation referred to is a form of

implementing the precautionary principle of the

bank.

In some cases that occur with banks, SOPs are

sometimes not "adhered to" or even "violated",

causing legal problems and losses to customers.

Under these conditions, violations of SOP will lead

to legal liability, both criminal and civil. If this

happens, the Bank's Operational Persons who have

committed violations may be subject to legal

liability and personal sanctions. In addition, parties

who are involved and / or participate as well as those

who assist in the transaction can also be asked for

the same legal responsibility. Involved, participating

or the intended servant is anyone who knows, helps

or even allows the violation to occur. Then the

violations here are not only violations that are active

but also passive, in the sense of violations due to

deliberate or negligent in the eyes of the law have

the same value.

Seeing the conditions mentioned above,

especially regarding sanctions and legal

consequences that will be held accountable if

"someone" commits an offense, or who participates

or assists in the occurrence of a violation, then it

should be and there is no choice to always submit,

obey and obey the rules there is. This action is the

only thing that can save the employee from legal

problems in carrying out their duties and

responsibilities.

Violation of SOP is a violation of law. The

consequences of a violation result in criminal

liability, fines and / or compensation. The thing to

note with this legal sanction is that the legal

sanctions are "attached to the makers of mistakes"

(Thalib, A.R., 2006). The legal responsibility for the

violation rests entirely with the person who

committed the violation.

According to Mahmud Mulyadi, the principle of

"geen straf zonder schuld" or in Latin terms "actus

non est reus nisi mens sit rea", the element of error

or "mens rea" becomes very important in imposing

crimes on perpetrators of crime. "Speaking of" bad

intentions ( mens rea) "in a conviction, then the

essence is inseparable from the existence of" free

will "in human beings. In the study of criminal law,

"free will" gives birth to two streams in the purpose

of punishment (criminal liability), namely classical

school and positive flow. Classical schools view that

humans have free will to do something. A person

who commits a criminal offense will be sentenced

according to what is threatened by the law (highly

dependent on the issue of whether the perpetrator in

committing the crime has an error of intentionality

(dolus) or negligence (culpa)). The principle of

accountability in criminal law expressly states that

there is no criminal without error. This error is seen

from the inner connection of the creator (subjective)

and his actions in the form of deliberate and neglect

/ negligence. In criminal law the elements of actus

reus (objective element) and the criminal

responsibility or mens rea are formulated (subjective

elements). Both must be joined by judges in criminal

conviction (monoism), or separated in criminal

conviction (dualism). Criminal law in Indonesia

adheres to dualism according to Article 191 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, which separates the

subjective and objective elements "(Mulyadi, M.,

2016).

Anyone who makes mistakes or violations will

be legally processed without discrimination. This

phenomenon should be considered to be more

careful and obedient and implement the laws and

regulations that apply fully and consequently to

everything related to the work of bank employees.

Another thing to note is that what is meant by

"perpetrators of a crime" is not only "those who

commit a direct crime", but also includes those who

join in, helping and enjoying the results of the crime.

Although the employee is not the one who did, or

just went along with even just knowing, but does not

prevent, it can be suspected of participating in

committing criminal acts committed by people who

are not responsible. Provisions regarding parties

deemed as perpetrators in a criminal offense are

CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies

regulated in Articles 55 and 56 of the Criminal

Code.

As for those who are deemed as perpetrators of

criminal offenses according to criminal law, not only

the perpetrators, but also include those who order to

do, participate in doing, who give or promise

something by abusing power or dignity, which gives

opportunity, means or information, which orders to

do as well who helped do.

One of the most appropriate ways to overcome to

avoid legal problems as mentioned above is to

understand, obey and implement SOPs and other

provisions related to job duties and responsibilities.

Other efforts that can be done are to prioritize:

professionalism, accountability, independence and

transparency in work (KNKCG, 2004).

Another important thing to do in preventing

violations and / or mistakes is to apply the Prudent

Banking Principle in a consistent and committed

manner. Prudent Banking Principle is a principle or

principle that banks in carrying out their functions

and business activities must be prudent. Seriousness

in applying this principle will greatly help to prevent

or reduce errors and violations. The higher prudence

in carrying out a job, of course, the less likely the

occurrence of errors or violations in the work

concerned. Based on Black’s Law Dictionary, about

“prudential principle” that “Prudence is carefullness,

precaution attentiveness and good judgement, as

applied to action or conduct, that degree of care

required by the exigencies or circumstances under

which it is to be exercised” (Black, Richard C.,

2004).

The importance of the Prudent Banking Principle

in Bank operations, can be seen in Article 2 and

Article 29 paragraph (2) of Law no. 7 of 1992 jo.

No. 10 of 1998. As such, there is no reason for

banks not to apply the precautionary principle in

carrying out their business activities and must

uphold and adhere to the principle. All actions and

policies that are made must always be based on

applicable laws and regulations, so that they can be

legally accounted for.

An example of the Prudent Banking Principle in

a savings transaction is that the bank officer / bank

employee must carefully look at the requirements

and the documents submitted relating to the

transaction in question. For example, carefully

examine whether the file is complete or not, original

or fake, as well as the signature (original or fake),

whether the file was obtained correctly by the party

who submitted it (in practice often misuse of PICs

and other similar files), whether the transaction is

known by the savings owner, if it turns out that what

comes is his power of attorney and other similar

acts. The point is the Prudent Banking Principle

emphasizes that it is thorough, careful, not rash, but

still professional at work.

The next banking principle is the Know Your

Customer Principles (KYCP) Principle, a principle

applied by banks to find out the identity of

customers, monitor customer transaction activities,

including reporting suspicious transactions. The

application of KYCP in banking transactions is one

of the effective efforts in preventing and minimizing

the occurrence of violations and errors. An example

of KYCP in withdrawal, book-entry or RTGS

passbook is the act of "confirmation" done by Teller

to the owner of the passbook before the transaction

is carried out when the person requesting the

transaction is executed is not a direct customer but

someone else authorized for it. From this example it

is clear how effective the KYCP is in trying to avoid

legal problems.

The application of KYCP is a necessity

considering the variety of modes practiced by

criminal offenders as well as the moral hazard of

perpetrators of crime in the banking industry. At

present the Know Your Customer Principles have

risen towards Customers Due Diligence which

actually leads to one of the most important

principles and becomes the bank's Prudential

Principle. Customers Due Diligence emphasizes the

importance of Bank officers to identify and verify

prospective customers. This action is an initial effort

to prevent criminals from becoming customers of a

bank. Identification and verification carried out of

course with all the provisions that do not offend the

prospective customer concerned.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The criminal liability of bank employees who do not

implement the precautionary principle arises from

complaints reports made by customers. The

complaint report is based on an act against criminal

law. Meanwhile, the accountability from the internal

perspective of the bank is in the form of mechanistic

administrative responsibilities and compensation /

compensation. As a result, a regulation on the

application of the prudential principle is needed in

the form of a Financial Services Authority

Regulation that contains the legal consequences of

violating these regulations. This is aimed at

enforcing banking law by an independent Financial

Services Authority in supervising the financial

services sector, which carries out its supervisory

Employee Criminal Liability for the Prudential Principle of a Bank

duties and functions in the case of investigating

banking crimes in the financial services sector.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is supported by a Lecturer in the Law

Study Doctoral Program (S3) Faculty of Law,

University of North Sumatra, Medan.

REFERENCES

Agustina, Rosa., 2003. Perbuatan Melawan Hukum, Pasca

Sarjana FH-UI. Jakarta. p. 117.

Apriani, Rani., dan Hartanto., 2019. Hukum Perbankan

dan Surat Berharga, Cet. Ke-1. Deepublish.

Yogyakarta. p. 23-24.

Ashworth, Andrew., Horder, Jeremy., 2009. Principles of

Criminal Law: 7th Edition, Oxford University Press.

Oxford, UK. p. 155.

Black, Richard Campbel., Bryan A. Garner (Ed.)., 2004.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 8

Ed., West Group.

Minnesota. p. 3872.

Chand, Hari., 1994. Modern Jurisprudence, International

Law Book Stories, Golden Books Centre. Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia. p. 1-29.

Fletcher, George P., 2000. Rethinking Criminal Law,

Oxford University Press. New York. p. 492.

Fuady, Munir., 2010. Perbuatan Melawan Hukum:

Pendekatan Kontemporer, Citra Aditya Bakti.

Bandung. p. 22.

Furst, Karen., 2002. “Internet Banking: Development and

Prospects”, Program on Information Resources Policy

Harvard University, p. 4.

Hirsanudin., 2008. Hukum Perbankan Syariah di

Indonesia Pembiayaan Bisnis Dengan Prinsip

Kemitraan, Genta Press. Yogyakarta. p. 102.

Huda, Chairul., 2006. Dari Tindak Pidana Tanpa

Kesalahan Menuju Kepada Tiada Pertanggung

Jawaban Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan, Cet. Ke-2,

Kencana. Jakarta. p. 68.

Idroes, Ferry N., Sugiarto., 2006., Manajemen Risiko

Perbankan Dalam Konteks Kesepakatan Basel dan

Peraturan Bank Indonesia, Graha Ilmu. Yogyakarta. p.

Julisman., 2017. “Analisis Hukum Kedudukan

Penggunaan Cek dan Bilyet Giro Sebagai Jaminan

Utang Dalam Hubungan Bisnis”, Tesis, Program Studi

Magister Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Hukum Universitas

Sumatera Utara, Medan, p. 119.

Komite Nasional Kebijakan Corporate Governance.,

Januari 2004. “Pedoman Good Corporate Governance

Perbankan Indonesia”.

Muchtar, Bustari., dkk., 2016. Bank dan Lembaga

Keuangan Lain, Ed. Ke-1, Cet. Ke-1, Kencana.

Jakarta. p. 88-89.

Mulyadi, Mahmud., April 2016. “Niat Jahat (Mens Rea)

Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi”, Makalah, Program

Studi Magister Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Hukum

Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, p. 40.

Muktar, Bustari et all., 2016. Bank dan Lembaga

Keuangan Lain, Ed. Ke-1, Cet. Ke-1, Kencana.

Jakarta. p. 88-89.

Notoatmojo, Soekidjo., 2010. Etika dan Hukum

Kesehatan, Rineka Cipta. Jakarta.

Pramono, Nindyo., 1999. “Mengenal Lembaga Perbankan

di Indonesia Sebuah Pendekatan dari Perspektif

Hukum Ekonomi”, Penataran Hukum Perdata dan

Ekonomi, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Yogyakarta. p. 1.

Rahardjo, Budi., 2001. "Aspek Teknologi Dan Keamanan

Dalam Internet Banking.", Insan Indonesia. Jakarta.

Rozali, Asep., 2011. “Prinsip Mengenal Nasabah (Know

Your Customer Principle) Dalam Praktik Perbankan”,

Jurnal Wawasan Hukum Vol. 24 No. 1, p. 298-299.

Schulze, Heinrich., 2007. “Confidentiality and Secrecy in

Bank – Client Relationship”, Juta’s Bus. L., 15, p. 122.

Sjahdeini, Sutan Remy., 1994. Kebebasan Berkontrak dan

Perlindungan Yang Seimbang Bagi Para Pihak Dalam

Perjanjian Kredit Bank di Indonesia, Institut Bankir

Indonesia. Jakarta. p. 162.

Thalib, Abdul Rasyid, and M. SH. Bakti., 2006.

Wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi & Implikasinya

dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan RI. Citra Aditya, p. 473.

Triwulan, Titik., Febrian, Shinta., 2010. Perlindungan

Hukum Bagi Pasien, Prestasi Pustaka. Jakarta. p. 48.

CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies