This study discusses criminal liability for perpetrators of online gambling crimes based on Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law) from the perspective of Indonesian criminal law. The research employs a normative juridical approach with a case study method on Decision Number 628/PID.B/2023/PN Sleman. The defendant was proven to have knowingly distributed and disseminated links to online gambling sites via social media, as well as obtained financial gain from these activities. Based on the judge’s decision, the defendant was sentenced to 1 year and 8 months in prison and fined IDR 250,000,000. The results indicate that the application of Article 27 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 45 paragraph (2) of the ITE Law is in accordance with the principles of criminal liability, including the elements of fault (mens rea) and unlawful acts (actus reus). Nevertheless, challenges remain in law enforcement against online gambling, particularly regarding sites operating abroad and the low level of public legal awareness. The recommendations provided include a more comprehensive legal approach to enhance the effectiveness of combating online gambling in Indonesia.

The rapid development of technology has led to a transformation in gambling practices, shifting from physical establishments to online platforms. However, law enforcement in Indonesia continues to struggle with multiple challenges in addressing this issue. This research aims to assess the enforcement of online gambling laws based on Lawrence M. Friedman’s legal system theory. It focuses on how legal structure, legal culture, and legal substance interact in the enforcement process.  The findings demonstrate that, first, in terms of legal substance, existing regulations are not yet fully effective in combating online gambling. Second, from the perspective of legal structure, law enforcement agencies face persistent challenges in combating online gambling. Third, from the perspective of legal culture, public legal awareness remains relatively low.

A nil sentence is very appropriate to apply to defendants whose verdict is sentenced to death, such as in the case of Muhammad Natsir and Heru Hidayat. However, the Dimas Kanjeng case certainly raises a different problem, where the panel of judges imposed a maximum prison sentence of 20 years, so if there are other cases the verdict must be nil. This means that the defendant, who was previously sentenced to 20 years in prison, was not increased to life imprisonment. Another problem is the lack of integrated administration between courts which results in overlapping criminal sanctions that exceed 20 years. Tstelsel's absorption in a sharpened realist concursus states that it is necessary to review the level between crimes that have permanent legal force and crimes that have just been revealed based on higher criminal threats, so that the implementation of a nil sentence achieves the principles of legal certainty, justice and expediency. The implementation of the nil sentence must be socialized to the wider community, especially in the case of Dimas Kanjeng and Muhammad Natsir, who in their decision were sentenced to a nil sentence because they had previously been sentenced to death. The aim of the outreach is to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of the defendant's release from criminal sanctions, because a zero verdict arises because the verdict has been maximum and can no longer be handed down. Judges need to interpret in more depth the basic reasons for giving a nil verdict which is linked to SEMA No. 1 of 2022 to better ensure justice and benefits for society, which of course is adjusted to the legal facts obtained during the trial period.