This study analyzes the dialectic of political interests in the recovery of assets from corruption through the Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture (NCB) mechanism. Using a normative legal approach, the study reveals that NCB is a strategic solution to overcome the limitations of the conventional system, especially in cases where perpetrators flee or have immunity, with the potential to increase asset recovery by up to 40%. Findings indicate that political interests are hindering the enactment of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, despite NCB being mandated by the UNCAC 2003 and proven effective internationally. This study recommends accelerating the legislative process for the enactment of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, which could revolutionize the enforcement of criminal law against corruption in Indonesia

Freedom of opinion is the right of every individual from birth which has been guaranteed by the constitution, In interaction in society it is undeniable that there are always things that cause problems and one of them is insult or defamation. The regulation of defamation in the criminal law system in Indonesia has been regulated in Articles 310-320 of the Criminal Code. In Article 310 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) a person will be considered guilty of committing a criminal offense of insult or defamation according to the Criminal Code, Law Number 1 of 1946 concerning the Regulation of Criminal Acts, and Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions, On September 4, 2023 the petitioner in this case Haris Azhar, Fatiah Maulidiyanti and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court to examine Law Number 1 of 1946 concerning Criminal Law Regulations, the Criminal Code, and Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945,  The impact of the Constitutional Court decision Number 78/PUU-XXI/2023 on the criminal act of insult or defamation in Indonesia finally 14 or article 15 of Law Number 1 of 1946 was declared unconstitutional and non-binding, then the regulation of defamation or insult all became absolute complaint offenses.

The implementation of the death penalty remains controversial, especially when viewed through the lens of human rights such as the right to life and freedom from torture. In Indonesia, the death penalty is enforced for serious crimes, but not yet applied to corruption. This research explores the possibility of applying the death penalty to corruption cases and identifies the obstacles hindering its enforcement. Using a normative legal research approach, this study examines both primary and secondary legal materials. Corrupt acts in Indonesia are punishable by imprisonment, restitution, and in severe cases, the death penalty. The enforcement of penalties is part of Indonesia's criminal justice system, encompassing legal substance, legal structure, and legal culture. From a criminal policy perspective, the death penalty may serve as a deterrent and contribute to social welfare. However, its implementation faces challenges, including weak legal foundations, concerns over human rights, and pressure from international human rights agreements.

Corporations, as legal entities, can be held criminally liable for corruption offenses under Indonesian law. The legal framework in Indonesia recognizes corporations as subjects of criminal law, as outlined in Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (UU Tipikor). However, there are still gaps in the law, particularly regarding main and additional penalties for corporate entities. The introduction of Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP Nusantara) addresses these shortcomings by providing more comprehensive regulations on corporate criminal liability, particularly for corruption-related offenses. This study employs a qualitative research approach, using legislative analysis, case law examination, and conceptual analysis. The research is doctrinal and juridical-normative, relying on literature studies and document analysis of statutory regulations and court decisions regarding corporate corruption. The study focuses on the corruption case involving PT. Sinarmas Asset Management (PT. SAM), where the corporation was held criminally liable under both the Anti-Corruption Law and the Indonesian Criminal Code. The research reveals that the Indonesian Criminal Code offers more detailed provisions, including additional penalties for corporations convicted of corruption. The case study also highlights significant legal developments in the trial process. Initially, the District Court convicted PT. SAM of corruption, but this verdict was overturned by the Jakarta High Court, which acquitted the company. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts and upheld the conviction, continuing to impose penalties on PT. SAM for the mismanagement of unauthorized funds. This case underscores the complexities of corporate criminal liability in corruption cases and the evolving nature of judicial interpretations of corporate accountability in Indonesia.