<![CDATA[This article examines how the application or effectiveness of the penalty in lieu of fines in tax crimes after Law Number 7 of 2021 concerning Tax Harmonization which based on Article 44C Paragraph (1), Paragraph (2), states that fines cannot be replaced by imprisonment and must be paid by the convict, but in this case if the defendant is not paid within 1 month, it is replaced with a prison sentence that does not exceed the prison sentence that is broken. The purpose of this study is to analyse the judges' considerations in imposing substitute fines in tax crime cases (decision number 1025/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Jkt) and to analyse the implementation of substitute criminal sanctions for fines in tax crimes. This study uses a normative juridical method and is supported by an empirical juridical method with a literature approach or related laws. Data analysts use qualitative descriptive. The results of this study show that the legal position of Article 44C Paragraph (1) does not provide legal certainty for losses in state revenue. Paragraph (3) provides a loophole to the defendant; if his property is insufficient, it will be replaced with a prison sentence. Decision Number 1025/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Jkt Pst provides the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2 x IDR 1,615,653,056 = IDR 3,231,306,110, but in reality, the assets owned by the defendant are insufficient to cover the loss to state revenue. Therefore, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in lieu of a fine of 6 (six) months.]]>
