LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE RECOVERY OF ECONOMIC LOSSES SUFFERED BY VICTIMS OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN INDONESIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.5763Keywords:
Restorative Justice, Victims of Crime, Recovery of Economic Losses, Asset Forfeiture, LegislationAbstract
The legal framework for compensating victims of criminal offenses for economic losses in Indonesia still faces fundamental challenges regarding legal norms, institutional structures, and implementation mechanisms, resulting in legal gaps in the procedures and effectiveness of compensation, particularly for mass victims. This situation becomes even more complex when the perpetrators of criminal acts cannot be held accountable, necessitating legal reform focused on victim protection, legal certainty, and operational and sustainable compensation mechanisms. The objective of this study is to analyze and critique the legal framework for the economic restitution of victims of criminal offenses in Indonesia and to formulate a model for legal reform regarding the economic restitution of victims of criminal offenses that focuses on victim protection, legal certainty, and effective and sustainable restitution mechanisms. The research method employed is normative legal research using a legislative and conceptual approach, encompassing an analysis of positive legal provisions regarding the recovery of economic losses for victims of criminal offenses, as well as a study of legal doctrines and principles concerning victim protection, restorative justice, and the concept of the Pancasila Rule of Law. The findings of this study indicate that the legal framework for the recovery of economic losses suffered by victims of criminal offenses in Indonesia remains weak, particularly in ensuring effective recovery for a large number of victims, given the dominance of a system focused on the perpetrator and the legal vacuum that arises when the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted. The proposed legal reform model emphasizes victim restitution as a priority by integrating restorative justice approaches, asset forfeiture, and restitution mechanisms that involve the state as the protector of victims in accordance with the values of Pancasila.
References
Angkasa, A. (2004). The Position of Victims in the Criminal Justice System. Diponegoro University.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2016). Introduction to Constitutional Law.
Atmasasmita, R. (2017). Reconstruction of the Principle of No Crime Without Guilt. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Cassella, S. D. (2018). Asset Forfeiture Law in the United States. In The Palgrave Handbook of Criminal and Terrorism Financing Law (pp. 427–446). Springer.
Dewi, A. I. A., Tarandung, H. G. B., Varany, Y. T., & Sari, E. K. (2025). The Overlooking of Substantive Justice: A Progressive Legal Examination of the PT Timah Tbk Corruption Ruling. Mendapo: Journal of Administrative Law, 6(3), 252–274.
Ekaputra, M., & Kahir, A. (2010). The Criminal System in the Criminal Code and Its Regulation According to the Concept of the New Criminal Code. USUpress.
Firmansyah, H., & Lisyah, L. S. (2023). Legal Liability Toward Victims for Unfulfilled Restitution Costs in the Tangerang District Court Decision No. 1712/Pid. Sus/2021/Pn. Tng. Unes Law Review, 6(1), 3586–3596.
Harahap, M. Y. (2002). Discussion of issues and application of the Criminal Procedure Code: investigation and prosecution; Volume II.
Hidayat, A. (2017). A Pancasila-Based Rule of Law State. Seminar Materials Presented During Law Faculty Week, 1–13.
Jerman, H. (2017). Asset Recovery from Criminal Proceeds as a Form of Legal Protection for Crime Victims. DIH: Journal of Legal Science, 149–161.
Levi, M., & Reuter, P. (2006). Money laundering. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 289–375.
Muladi, A., & Nawawi, B. (1998). Theories and Criminal Policy. (No Title).
Paruntu, N. K., & Sudiro, A. (2025). A Paradigm Shift in Asset Recovery in Corruption Crimes to Achieve the Optimization of Restitution of State Losses. Jurnal Usm Law Review, 8(3), 1903–1929.
Prasetyo, T. (2013). Law and the Legal System Based on Pancasila. Yogyakarta: Media Perkasa.
Prasetyo, Z. M., Malinda, I. P., PJ, C. S., Azzahra, L. A., Rahma, S., & Hadji, K. (2025). Synchronization of Law Enforcement Policies: The Position of the Asset Forfeiture Bill in the Indonesian Legal System. Menulis: Jurnal Penelitian Nusantara, 1(12), 801–808.
Rahardjo, S. (2009). Analyzing Progressive Law, Jakarta: Kompas Book Publisher. Satjipto Rahardjo.
Rizkia, N. D., & Fardiansyah, H. (2023). Legal research methods (normative and empirical). Widina Publishers.
Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. J. (2016). Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge University Press.
Shapland, J., Willmore, J., & Duff, P. (1985). Victims in the Criminal Justice System (Vol. 53). Gower, Aldershot.
Vu Cao, M., & Cao, T. N. A. (2025). Asset recovery via non-conviction based forfeiture: rationale for regulation and recommendations for implementation in Vietnam. Law and Development Review, 18(1), 97–122.
Zulfa, E. A. (2010). Restorative justice and the revitalization of customary institutions in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Criminology, 4199.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
I (we) submit this article which is original and unpublished, of my (our) own authorship, to the evaluation of the Veredas do Direito Journal, and agree that the related copyrights will become exclusive property of the Journal, being prohibited any partial or total copy in any other part or other printed or online communication vehicle dissociated from the Veredas do Direito Journal, without the necessary and prior authorization that should be requested in writing to Editor in Chief. I (we) also declare that there is no conflict of interest between the articles theme, the author (s) and enterprises, institutions or individuals.
I (we) recognize that the Veredas do Direito Journal is licensed under a CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
