Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Ali Salmande, Andin Aditya Rahman
As part of its continuing development of its regulatory and legal system, Indonesia has finally incorporated some corporate crimes into a few of its laws.
Unfortunately, none of these crimes are supported by the necessary procedural laws nor are they adequately covered by the Criminal Procedure Law ( Law No. 8 of 1981).
The Draft Bill on Criminal Procedural Law in its currently available form also fails to specifically include provisions covering procedural law for corporate crimes.
During a seminar titled “Development Changes of the Criminal Procedure Code in Indonesia” at Trisakti University in Jakarta on Tuesday, Ali Mukartono, a prosecutor at the Attorney General’s Office, stated that there are at least two laws that prescribe corporate crimes. These are Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001, and Law No. 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering.
However, he stated that these laws fail to provide clear provisions on their procedural aspects from the early investigation stages until court proceedings.
“Of all the corporate criminal cases involving corruption, only one case in Banjarmasin has been successful. I too have attempted to prosecute corporate crimes a few times but was constrained by procedural aspects,” confided Ali.
An almost comical requirement of an indictment is complete information on the identity of the suspect in question, including their gender and religion.
“Corporations cannot have a gender or religion. But if we don’t include these details, the indictment will be considered invalid,” lamented Ali.
The only available procedure law for corporate crimes is Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that a corporate subpoena is to be addressed to a corporation’s address and its management in accordance with its constitutional documents.
“Provisions are only provided under the Subpoena Chapter, while nothing about this is provided under the Investigations Chapter,” he stated.
On a separate opportunity, Chairul Huda, a member in the drafting team of the Draft Criminal Procedural Law, clarified that the draft includes provisions on criminal charges against incorporations.
“If it is a company or incorporation it is not a problem. What becomes an issue is if the company is not incorporated,” stated Chairul, who is now a lecturer at the Law Faculty of Muhammadiyah University, during a telephone interview with Hukumonline.
Chairul, however, asserts that not every aspect of corporate criminal procedural law will be included in the draft. The more technical aspects will be left to implementing regulations of the to-be Code.
In addition, he also stated that law enforcement officials need not be confused in drawing up indictments against corporations, as the information needed is typically included in a corporation’s constitutional documents.
“Corporations also have identities that can be construed from their constitutional documents. The important aspect is law enforcers must understand that corporate criminal charges aim to confiscate illicit assets through criminal fines, not imprisonment,” concluded Chairul.
(hot/kc)
Ali Salmande, Andin Aditya Rahman
As part of its continuing development of its regulatory and legal system, Indonesia has finally incorporated some corporate crimes into a few of its laws.
Unfortunately, none of these crimes are supported by the necessary procedural laws nor are they adequately covered by the Criminal Procedure Law ( Law No. 8 of 1981).
The Draft Bill on Criminal Procedural Law in its currently available form also fails to specifically include provisions covering procedural law for corporate crimes.
During a seminar titled “Development Changes of the Criminal Procedure Code in Indonesia” at Trisakti University in Jakarta on Tuesday, Ali Mukartono, a prosecutor at the Attorney General’s Office, stated that there are at least two laws that prescribe corporate crimes. These are Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001, and Law No. 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering.
However, he stated that these laws fail to provide clear provisions on their procedural aspects from the early investigation stages until court proceedings.
“Of all the corporate criminal cases involving corruption, only one case in Banjarmasin has been successful. I too have attempted to prosecute corporate crimes a few times but was constrained by procedural aspects,” confided Ali.
An almost comical requirement of an indictment is complete information on the identity of the suspect in question, including their gender and religion.
“Corporations cannot have a gender or religion. But if we don’t include these details, the indictment will be considered invalid,” lamented Ali.
The only available procedure law for corporate crimes is Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that a corporate subpoena is to be addressed to a corporation’s address and its management in accordance with its constitutional documents.
“Provisions are only provided under the Subpoena Chapter, while nothing about this is provided under the Investigations Chapter,” he stated.
On a separate opportunity, Chairul Huda, a member in the drafting team of the Draft Criminal Procedural Law, clarified that the draft includes provisions on criminal charges against incorporations.
“If it is a company or incorporation it is not a problem. What becomes an issue is if the company is not incorporated,” stated Chairul, who is now a lecturer at the Law Faculty of Muhammadiyah University, during a telephone interview with Hukumonline.
Chairul, however, asserts that not every aspect of corporate criminal procedural law will be included in the draft. The more technical aspects will be left to implementing regulations of the to-be Code.
In addition, he also stated that law enforcement officials need not be confused in drawing up indictments against corporations, as the information needed is typically included in a corporation’s constitutional documents.
“Corporations also have identities that can be construed from their constitutional documents. The important aspect is law enforcers must understand that corporate criminal charges aim to confiscate illicit assets through criminal fines, not imprisonment,” concluded Chairul.
(hot/kc)