Abstract: This study aims to analyze the Banjarmasin High Court Judge Decision Number 3 /PID.SUS-TPK/2023/PT BJM imposing restitution, also to find out the legally considerared of the judge in study of the decision has permanent legal force part 3/PID.SUS-TPK/2023/PT BJM imposing complement crime in formation of payment of compensation for bribery against the accused mardani h maming. Imposing this decision, the panel of judges must really understand the forms of bribery corruption with harm to state finances, and judges must consider, consider logical legal reasoning about harm to state finances and bribery corruption. This research, researchers used a pettern of normative legal research, where object research is the judge’s decision or the law. This is the parsing is based on carried out by the research, from the explanation above it can be get an overview that: First, Banjarmasin High Court’s decision to uphold the Banjarmasin District Court’s decision to regarding additional criminal punishment in the form of a replacement payment of restitution to convict of bribery in regarding in section 12b start PTPK Legislation is not correct, because what is meant by the additional punishment of payment of restitution in section 18 b is for state financial losses in accordance with the general explanation of the PTPK Law ... for perpetrators of corruption crimes who cannot pay additional punishment in the form of restitution for state losses. So that the types of corruption that are potentially used are section 2(1) and section 3 which are corruption that harms state finances, not for other types of corruption. Second, that the consideration of the judge part 3/PID.SUS-TPK/2023/PT.BJM who imposed an complement penalty in the formation of payment of restitution against the convict charged with section 12b joncto section 18 of the PTPK Law, the panel of judges considered the financial loss of the State was not appropriate, because the judge considered the financial loss of the state and the state economy in bribery corruption.

Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis Putusan Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi Banjarmasin Putusan Nomor: 3/PID.SUS-TPK/2023/PT BJM menjatuhkan Pidana Uang Pengganti, dan Untuk mengetahui pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam Putusan Nomor: 3/PID.SUS-TPK/2023/PT BJM menjatuhkan pidana tambahan berupa pembayaran uang pengganti terhadap terdakwa. Dalam menjatuhkan putusan ini, Majelis hakim harus benar-benar memahami mengenai bentuk-bentuk korupsi suap dengan merugikan keuangan negara, serta hakim harus mempertimbangkan, pertimbangan penalaran hukum yang logis tentang merugikan keuangan negara dan korupsi suap. Penelitian ini termasuk jenis penelitian hukum Normatif, dimana objek penelitian ini putusan hakim atau Undang-Undang. Berdasarkan analisis yang dilakukan maka dapat ditarik kesimpulan bahwa: Pertama, Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Banjarmasin yang menguatkan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Banjarmasin yang memutus pidana tambahan berupa pembayaran uang pengganti kepada terpidana kasus suap pasal 12 huruf b UU PTPK tidaklah tepat, karena yang dimaksud pidana tambahan pembayaran uang pengganti pasal 18 b adalah untuk kerugian keuangan negara sesuai dengan penjelasan umum UU PTPK … bagi pelaku tindak pidana korupsi yang tidak dapat membayar pidana tambahan berupa uang pengganti kerugian negara. Sehingga jenis tindak pidana korupsi yang berpotensi digunakan adalah pasal 2 ayat (1) dan pasal 3 yang merupakan korupsi merugikan keuangan negara, tidak untuk jenis korupsi lainnya. Kedua, Bahwa pertimbangan hakim Nomor: 3/PID.SUS-TPK/2023/PT.BJM yang menjatuhkan pidana tambahan berupa pembayaran uang pengganti terhadap terpidana yang didakwakan pasal 12 huruf b joncto pasal 18 UU PTPK, Majelis hakim mempertimbangkan kerugian keuangan Negara tidak tepat, karena hakim mempertimbangkan kerugian keuangan negara dan perekonomian negaradalam korupsi suap.

Kata kunci: Pembayaran Uang Pengganti, Korupsi; Suap, Kerugian Keuangan Negaradan Pertimbangan Hakim.