<![CDATA[How should criminal law distinguish between online gambling providers, facilitators, and end users when electronic systems obscure actors, transactions, and jurisdictional links? This study examines the legal framework, prosecution, and judicial reasoning in Medan High Court Decision Number 659/Pid.Sus/2025/PT.MDN, as well as proportionate sentencing after the Indonesian Criminal Code entered into force. The research employed an empirical legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary data were obtained through interviews with a public prosecutor at the Medan District Prosecutor’s Office and a High Court judge in May 2026, while secondary data consisted of legislation, judicial decisions, books, and recent legal scholarship. The data were analyzed qualitatively through deductive reasoning by comparing applicable norms with their implementation in the case. The findings show that prosecution relied on Article 27 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 45 paragraph (3) of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law and was supported by testimonial and electronic evidence. However, merely accessing and playing on a gambling website does not automatically constitute distributing, transmitting, or making gambling content accessible. Articles 426 and 427 of Law Number 1 of 2023 provide a more appropriate basis for distinguishing organizers, facilitators, and players. The study recommends role-based sentencing, reliable authentication of electronic evidence, asset tracing, and coordinated preventive measures.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
