<![CDATA[Consumer protection in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 8 of 1999 (UUPK), which aims to ensure legal certainty and safeguard consumer rights. The law provides for criminal sanctions in Articles 61 to 63; however, these are often viewed as inadequate, as they emphasize punitive measures against business actors rather than restitution for consumers. A more effective approach would prioritize recovery and reparation of consumer losses, aligning better with the goals of criminal law reform. This research seeks to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of criminal law provisions within the UUPK in achieving justice and legal order. Employing normative juridical methods with statutory and conceptual approaches, the study analyzes both primary and secondary legal materials using prescriptive analysis. The findings reveal several shortcomings in the current formulation and implementation of criminal provisions in consumer protection. These include the lack of fulfillment of key criminal law principles: (1) the principle of reasonable loss, as not all violations result in criminal-worthy harm; (2) the principle of subsidiarity, since criminal law should be a last resort (ultimum remidium); (3) proportionality, where punishment should reflect the gravity of consumer loss; and (4) the principle of legality, particularly lex certa and lex stricta. On the other hand, the principle of tolerance in defining criminal acts is found to be fulfilled. Overall, a shift toward restorative justice and proportional sanctions is needed for more effective consumer protection.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
