ABSTRACT
Repeat offence is an aggravating factor of crime under the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), allowing the addition of a third of the maximum possible sentence to the verdict. In corruption cases, repeat offence is a special circumstance that may lead to the imposition of the death penalty. In Case Number 114/Pid.B/2006/PN.Jak.Sel involving Dicky Iskandar Dinata, the prosecutors applied an aggravation argument under the anti-corruption law to seek the death penalty. However, the court in its consideration used the provisions of the Criminal Code regarding aggravation of punishment. The issue is why there are different definitions of repeat offence as an aggravating circumstance. This paper aimed at analysing how repeat offence is applied as an aggravating factor in a corruption case as reflected in the prosecutor’s indictment or the court’s consideration. The method employed is normative research by reviewing court verdicts in corruption cases. The resulting findings show that there are differences in the interpretation of repeat offence as an aggravating circumstance.
