<![CDATA[Money laundering conducted through corporate vehicles has become an increasingly dominant modality in contemporary economic crime, as the legal personality of a corporation facilitates the concealment of the origin of criminal proceeds while simultaneously complicating asset recovery. Indonesian positive law Law Number 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering and Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, which has been in effect since 2 January 2026 both construct the corporation as a subject capable of bearing criminal liability. The difficulty lies in the fact that the available sanctions, still oriented primarily toward criminal fines as the principal penalty, have not adequately addressed the need for effective asset recovery, particularly once the proceeds of crime have been transferred to a beneficial owner or to third parties outside the corporation's formal structure. This article analyses the construction of corporate criminal sanctions in money-laundering cases, identifies their weaknesses from the standpoint of asset-recovery effectiveness, and formulates a proportionate and just reformulation of those sanctions. The research employs normative legal methods, using statutory, conceptual, and limited comparative approaches. The findings show that the disharmony between the corporate sentencing regime under Law Number 8 of 2010 and the Criminal Code deprives the fine of its deterrent value, since it does not automatically strip the illegal gains still enjoyed by the corporation or its beneficial owner. The article proposes a reformulation combining a fine proportionate to the value of criminal proceeds, mandatory disgorgement of the benefit obtained from the offence, a complementary non-conviction based asset forfeiture track, and corporate probation as a more proportionate alternative to dissolution, all while preserving protection for bona fide third parties and the principle of due process of law.]]>
