<![CDATA[Indonesia has gradually built a legal framework for victim restitution, yet it is seldom used in economic crimes with mass victims. This article asks why restitution remains dormant in the prosecution of digital illegal investment and designs a restitution-oriented model for prosecutorial demands. Taking Bengkulu District Court Decision Number 14/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Bgl as its point of departure, the study combines statutory, case, and conceptual approaches with interviews with the prosecutors and judge involved, analyzed qualitatively and prescriptively. It identifies three mutually reinforcing obstacles. The first is normative: restitution under the Witness and Victim Protection Law depends on a designation by the Witness and Victim Protection Agency and is not attached by default to the offense of unlicensed fund-raising. The second is structural: victim data are compiled to prove guilt rather than to calculate entitlements. The third is cultural: prosecutorial success is measured by conviction and sentence severity. In the case examined, a Rp10 billion fine payable to the state coexisted with roughly Rp1.6 billion in unrecovered victim losses. The article proposes a five-stage dual-track prosecution model built on a layered indictment, a net-loss matrix, and a restitution clause, consistent with the 2023 Penal Code and the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code. Keywords: Digital illegal investment; Dual-track prosecution; Prosecutorial demand; Restitution; Victim recovery.]]>
