Publication Search

Law Number 31 of 2004 concerning Fisheries as amended by Law Number 45 of 2009 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 2004 concerning Fisheries recognizes corporations as subjects of criminal acts in criminal acts in the fisheries sector, but the corporations are not held criminally responsible.This research is a normative legal research, using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach with literature study techniques or document studies. The processing of legal materials is carried out with several processes, namely the validity of legal materials, classification of legal materials, recording legal materials and analysis of legal materials. Analysis of legal materials is carried out in a normative qualitative juridical manner with descriptive and prescriptive analysis. The results of this study indicate  first, the regulation of corporate criminal liability in the current Fisheries Law still has shortcomings/weaknesses, namely it does not clearly formulate when a corporation is said to have committed a crime and based on the history of the development of corporations as subjects of criminal law, corporate criminal liability in the current Fisheries Law is still at stage II where corporations are recognized as perpetrators of criminal acts, but their criminal liability has not directly affected the corporation and only the corporate administrators are responsible. Second, the regulation of corporate criminal liability in the future can be seen in the Fisheries Bill which has answered the weaknesses/deficiencies in the Fisheries Law and has accommodated corporate criminal liability where corporations can be subject to principal or additional criminal sanctions for the crimes they commit.

This study is motivated by the issue of criminalizing drug couriers, who in judicial practice are often equated with the main perpetrators, even though in reality they occupy a subordinate position in the drug distribution network. The lack of clarity in the differentiation of roles in Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics has led to the application of criminal liability that tends to be formalistic and has the potential to disregard substantive justice. This study aims to analyze the form of criminal liability of Class I drug couriers and assess whether the Pekanbaru District Court Decision Number 119/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Pbr has reflected justice in the imposition of criminal penalties. The research method used is normative juridical with a legislative approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. The results of the study show that the criminal liability imposed on couriers in the verdict is direct as the main perpetrator, without considering the theory of the perpetrator's role, degree of fault, and the defendant's capacity to be held responsible. The judge emphasized the fulfillment of the elements of the act as formulated in Article 114 of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, without adequate analysis of the mens rea and the factual contribution of the courier in the structure of the crime. Justice in this study is understood as substantive justice, which requires consistency between the punishment, role, and degree of fault of the perpetrator. Proportional punishment is interpreted as the imposition of sanctions that clearly distinguish between couriers as subordinate actors and the main actors who control the narcotics network. This study concludes that the criminal liability of narcotics couriers must be based on individualization of punishment and proportionality so that law enforcement not only fulfills legal certainty but also reflects substantive justice.  

This research explores corporate criminal liability in the context of crimes committed within Indonesia's oil and gas sector. In the framework of modern criminal law, corporations are increasingly recognized as legal subjects that can bear criminal responsibility, particularly in cases related to economic crimes, environmental violations, and corruption. Given the oil and gas sector’s strategic significance and high economic value, it is especially vulnerable to legal violations committed by corporate entities. The research adopts a normative juridical method, utilizing statutory, conceptual, and case study approaches to analyze the current state of legal accountability mechanisms. The findings indicate that corporate criminal liability in the oil and gas sector is not explicitly regulated under Indonesia’s Oil and Gas Law, resulting in significant legal gaps that hinder effective enforcement. Although several laws—such as the Anti-Corruption Law, the Environmental Protection and Management Law, and Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 13 of 2016—provide a basis for prosecuting corporations, their specific application within the oil and gas sector remains limited. This limited application is attributed to several challenges, including technical difficulties in proving corporate guilt, limited investigative capacity and resources among law enforcement authorities, and the disproportionate influence and economic dominance of oil and gas corporations in regulatory and judicial processes. To address these challenges, the research emphasizes the urgent need for reformulating the legal framework governing corporate liability in the oil and gas industry. This includes incorporating explicit corporate criminal liability provisions into sector-specific laws, strengthening institutional enforcement capacity, and applying legal doctrines such as corporate culture theory and strict liability. These efforts aim to ensure that corporations in the oil and gas sector can be held accountable for criminal actions, promote legal certainty, and uphold environmental and economic justice in Indonesia.

White collar crime is increasingly prevalent in various corporate sectors and causes significant financial losses and damage to public trust. This type of crime includes embezzlement of funds, manipulation of financial statements, bribery, insider trading in the capital market, and theft of customer personal data. Although it occurs a lot, the prevention of white collar crime is still not optimal and the perpetrators are rarely prosecuted properly. This paper aims to analyze the various determinants that influence the occurrence of white collar crime in order to formulate policy recommendations and prevention strategies in the future. A systematic approach is used by applying the fraud triangle theory which focuses on the three main elements that cause fraud, namely pressure, opportunity and rationalization. The results of the study show that pressure to meet high performance targets and large bonuses often encourage individuals to commit fraud. Meanwhile, weak supervision and lack of transparency create opportunities for fraud. Perpetrators also often justify their actions, for example by assuming that they will not be caught or the value of the loss is small. The complexity of modern corporate operations also increases opportunities for white-collar crime. Effective prevention efforts must be comprehensive by involving various parties and strengthening a number of aspects as controls. The role of internal and external supervisors (auditors) of companies needs to be continuously improved, supported by modem fraud detection technology tools. Whistleblowing mechanisms need to be strengthened in every company and kept confidential to encourage early reporting of fraud indications.

Ketentuan Pasal 24C ayat (1) UUD NRI Tahun 1945 memberikan wewenang pada Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk mengadili sengketa kewenangan lembaga negara yang kewenangannya diberikan oleh UUD. Sedangkan sengketa kewenangan antarlembaga negara yang tidak diatur dalam UUD NRI Tahun 1945 mengalami vacuum of norm. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: pertama, perlunya diatur  sengketa kewenangan antarlembaga negara yang tidak diatur dalam UUD NRI Tahun 1945 karena Indonesia adalah negara hukum, karena belum tuntasnya pembahasan dalam Perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945, karena adanya potensi sengketa kewenangan antarlembaga negara. Kedua, implikasi hukum  penyelesaian kewenangan antarlembaga negara yang tidak diatur dalam UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang dilakukan oleh Presiden melalui instruksi-instruksi terselesaikannya sengketa. Ketiga, dalam perspektif kehidupan kenegaraan, formulasi pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa kewenangan antarlembaga negara dapat dilakukan melalui tiga opsi : (1) memperluas kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi (2) memperluas kewenangan Mahkamah Agung (3) memberikan kewenangan pada lembaga negara lain.    

The purpose of the study is to determine and analyze the criminal law protection of embezzlement of assets (Boedel Bankruptcy) of debtors that result in losses to creditors, and obstacles to criminal law enforcement for embezzlement of debtors' assets that result in the formulation of the problem What is the position of criminal law Embezzlement of debtors on their assets that causes creditor losses and how to overcome them. The method used in this study uses the Normative juridical approach method, the data sources are secondary data and primary legal materials.  Research Results (1).  Legal protection of the criminal act of embezzlement of the debtor that causes losses to the debtor, after being declared bankrupt by a judge is a criminal act of embezzlement regulated by Article 372 of the Criminal Code and Article 400 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, because the fulfillment of the criminal elements is fulfilled. (2). Obstacles faced, Uncooperation of the insolvent debtor in carrying out legal proceedings due to the lack of level of legal awareness possessed by the insolvent debtor. To overcome this, the bankrupt debtor should comply with the contents of the decision of the Supreme Court case Number 2K / Pdt.Sus-Pailit / 2019 willing to submit the legality of access to the curator team that will resolve, and as a good Indonesian citizen must obey, submit, and obey the laws and laws in force in Indonesia.