<![CDATA[The principle of ultimum remedium in tax criminal law is designed as the final boundary of law enforcement, to be used only when administrative measures are no longer effective. However, in the practice of handling corporate tax crimes in Indonesia, this principle is often disregarded, resulting in punishment becoming the first step rather than the last resort. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of ultimum remedium as a mechanism for state loss recovery and to assess the extent to which its implementation reflects the principles of justice and fiscal efficiency. Additionally, this study examines the relevance of this principle from an Islamic law perspective, particularly in relation to the concept of restorative justice and the state's role in realizing public welfare (maslahah). Using a normative juridical approach supported by empirical data from court decisions and interviews, this study finds that the ultimum remedium principle has not been consistently applied and tends to have no significant impact on state financial recovery. From an Islamic law standpoint, these findings reinforce the argument that a system prioritizing the restoration of state rights (the rights of Baitul Mal) should take precedence over physical sanctions, in accordance with the spirit of justice oriented toward public benefit. As a novel contribution, this study proposes a restorative fiscal justice approach model that positions ultimum remedium as an active strategy for recovering losses, not merely as a principle of criminal limitation. These findings are expected to strengthen the direction of economic criminal law reform toward a system that is more proportional, efficient, and adaptive to state needs, while aligning with ethical and religious values.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
