<![CDATA[General Background: Criminal restitution constitutes a legal mechanism for compensating victims and their families for losses arising from criminal offenses. Specific Background: Indonesian District Court Decision Number 185/Pid.B/2025/PN Jbg rejected an IDR 260,366,500 restitution claim submitted by a deceased victim’s heir through the Witness and Victim Protection Agency and public prosecutor. Knowledge Gap: Existing studies have insufficiently examined the distinction between heirs’ legal standing and criminal offense eligibility for restitution following victim death. Aims: This study examines heirs’ restitution rights and judicial interpretation of restitution requirements under Indonesian victim protection legislation. Employing normative juridical research, the study applies statutory, case, and conceptual approaches through qualitative legal analysis. Results: Article 7A(6) of Law Number 31 of 2014 recognizes heirs as restitution recipients when victims die. However, the court rejected the claim based on restrictive interpretations of eligible criminal offenses under Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2022 and circumstances seriously endangering life. The findings establish that heirs’ legal standing and restitution eligibility constitute distinct legal questions requiring separate judicial assessment. Law Number 3 of 2026 subsequently reaffirmed heirs’ entitlement without retroactively governing the examined decision. Novelty: This study distinguishes statutory recognition of heirs from judicial determination of qualifying offenses within a single criminal restitution dispute. Implications: Judicial assessments should reconcile statutory eligibility requirements with victim protection, legal certainty, and substantive justice while recognizing that victim death does not extinguish heirs’ restitution rights. Highlights: Article 7A(6) of Law Number 31 of 2014 explicitly recognizes eligible family members as compensation recipients. Restrictive interpretations of qualifying offenses and life-threatening circumstances formed the basis for denying the IDR 260,366,500 claim. Legal standing and statutory eligibility require separate assessments, while the 2026 legislation reinforces continuity of victim protection. Keywords: Criminal Restitution, Heirs’ Rights, Victim Protection, Judicial Interpretation, Indonesian Criminal Law]]>
