<![CDATA[The authority of the Supreme Court to adjudicate a criminal case on its own following the annulment of a lower court judgment raises important questions concerning the scope of cassation review and the principle of judicial hierarchy. This issue is particularly significant in cases involving multiple offences, such as embezzlement and money laundering, where the factual and legal relationship between predicate and subsequent offences requires comprehensive judicial assessment. This study examines Supreme Court Decision No. 3950 K/Pid.Sus/2024, in which the Supreme Court granted the public prosecutor's cassation and annulled the judgment of the Central Jakarta District Court before adjudicating the case itself. The research aims to analyse the legal basis, limits, and implications of the Supreme Court's authority to render its own judgment at the cassation stage. A normative juridical method is employed using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis focuses on the procedural framework governing cassation, the Supreme Court's corrective jurisdiction, and the relationship between judicial fact-finding and legal review. The study argues that adjudicating the case itself may serve judicial efficiency and corrective justice, but such authority requires strict justification to prevent cassation from becoming a de facto retrial. The decision demonstrates the importance of distinguishing errors of law from factual reassessment while ensuring that defendants' procedural rights remain protected. The study contributes to the debate concerning the appropriate boundaries of Supreme Court intervention in Indonesian criminal proceedings.]]>
