Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

A Comparative Study of Corporate Criminal Liability Systems in Indonesia and the United States Ismaidar Ismaidar; Azhar AR; Servasius Edwin Telaumbanua; Rudi Salam Tarigan; Ansori Maulana; Restika Ndruru; Zeno Eronu Zalukhu; Lasma Sinambela; Haris Putra Utama Limbong; Elisabeth Saragih; Robby Yusuf S Sembiring; Mus Mulyadi; Zahrana Syavica; Tengku Muhammad Reza Fikri Dharmawan; Muhammad Faiz Hadi; Ibrahim Ibrahim; Erwin Efendi Rangkuti; T. Ikhsan Ansyari Husny; Netty br Siahaan; Andi Gultom; Yoldy Israq; Putriani Nduru; Yulia Christy Shintara Aruan; Christine Natalia Pangaribuan
Mutiara : Jurnal Penelitian dan Karya Ilmiah Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): Juni : Mutiara : Jurnal Penelitian dan Karya Ilmiah
Publisher : STAI YPIQ BAUBAU, SULAWESI TENGGARA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59059/mutiara.v3i3.2268

Abstract

Corporate criminal liability has become a pivotal issue in modern criminal law, particularly in response to the increasing prevalence of crimes committed by legal entities. This article provides a comparative analysis of the corporate criminal liability systems in Indonesia and the United States, focusing on the legal foundations, models of liability, and enforcement practices. The United States adopts the principle of vicarious liability, allowing corporations to be held accountable for the acts of their employees performed within the scope of employment. In contrast, Indonesia employs a more fragmented approach through sectoral laws, without a unified criminal liability doctrine for corporations. The study reveals that while Indonesia has begun to recognize corporate liability, it still faces significant challenges in legal harmonization and effective enforcement. This comparison aims to contribute to the development of a more comprehensive and adaptive corporate criminal liability system in Indonesia, in line with international best practices.
Criminal Execution Of Payment Of Compensation What The Public Prosecutor Did In The Case Of Corruption Christine Natalia Pangaribuan; Suci Ramadani; Muhammad Arif Sahlepi
International Journal of Society and Law Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): December 2025
Publisher : Yayasan Multidimensi Kreatif

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61306/ijsl.v3i3.649

Abstract

This study analyzes the effectiveness and challenges of the Public Prosecutor (JPU) as the sole executor in carrying out the penalty of paying substitute money (UP) in corruption cases. Replacement money, which is regulated in Article 18 of the Corruption Law, is an additional criminal sanction that is essential to recover state financial losses (asset recovery). This normative-empirical legal research identifies that normatively the prosecutor has the strong authority to confiscate and auction the assets of the convict if the UP is not paid within one month. However, in practice, the prosecutor faces significant obstacles, mainly due to: 1) The act of transferring the convict's assets triggers a lawsuit against a third party (derden verzet), which delays the execution process; and 2) Technical limitations in asset tracing to track assets disguised through money laundering schemes. It was concluded that it is necessary to strengthen synergy between institutions and the optimal use of TPPU legal instruments to ensure the success of asset recovery and achieve restorative criminal law goals.