Analysis of Acquittal Decision Number 57/PID.SUS/PN/KBA in Illegal Mining Case

The rise of unconventional mining has resulted in massive environmental damage, whoever downloads it, while most of the IT mining actors are people who are not legal entities who have mining permits, while the tin mining management policy is the authority of the central government. The research in this article is normative juridical with a case approach. The focus of the problem wants to know how the Public Prosecutor's construction is in qualifying criminal acts as in Article 161. Then what is the judge's consideration in resolving mining cases without permits. The results of the research show that general clients construct the defendant's actions into the provisions of Article 161. However, in the transfer process general clients are weak in proving the elements of the offense formulation in that article. The judge considered that the fraudster had no obligation to take responsibility and be responsible in the case. The Panel of Judges considered that what was done by the Defendant as a third party was to become a partner and carry out collection and storage activities on the basis of the IUP mining location designation letter belonging to PT. Sinar Sejahtera Perkasa is still within the required grace period, so that there are no actions by the Defendant that violate the provisions of the statutory regulations.