Published date: Oct 30 2023

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: 5th Social and Humaniora Research Symposium (5th SoRes)

Pages: 54–62

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v8i18.14197

Ade Mahmudade.mahmud@unisba.ac.idBandung Islamic University, Bandung, Indonesia

Chepi Ali Firman ZBandung Islamic University, Bandung, Indonesia

Husni SyawaliBandung Islamic University, Bandung, Indonesia

Wildan .Bandung Islamic University, Bandung, Indonesia

Sarah .Bandung Islamic University, Bandung, Indonesia

The issue of criminalizing corruption crimes involving corporations has become a concern because, recently, the phenomenon of corruption in several cases has involved corporations that are not easily subject to criminal sanctions. This research aims to analyze the criminal liability for corporations as perpetrators of corruption crimes in the Indonesian legal system and the pattern of punishment for corporations that commit corruption crimes. This research method applies the normative juridical method with a qualitative analysis of secondary data. The results show that law enforcement officials who determine corporations as suspects in corruption crimes and punish them but have difficulty in ensnaring corporations. One of the causes is the incomplete provisions regarding corporations as legal subjects in the anticorruption law. In addition, investigators have difficulty finding evidence and determining the identity of corporate offenders. The pattern of punishment for corporations is to apply a cumulative-alternative punishment pattern aimed at the corporation and its management. For corporations, the type of punishment imposed is fines or economic punishment aimed at recovering losses due to corruption or administrative punishment such as revocation of business licenses, while for the management, the punishment imposed is imprisonment and fines.

Keywords: sentencing, corruption, corporation

[1] Muladi and D. Sulistyani. Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Bandung: Alumni; 2013.

[2] Hikmawati P. Kendala Penerapan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Negara Huk. 2017;8(1):131–150.

[3] Earl S. Ascertaining the criminal liability of a corporation. New Zealand Business Law Quarterly; 2007.

[4] Sjahdeini SR. Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: Grafiti Pers; 2007.

[5] Malmi T, Brown DA. Management control systems as a package-opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research. 2008;19(4):287– 300.

[6] Walton GW. Gramsci’s activists: How local civil society is shaped by the anticorruption industry, political society and translocal encounters. Political Geography. 2016;53:10–19.

[7] Ganie-Rochman M, Achwan R. Corruption in Indonesia’s emerging democracy. Journal of Developing Societies. 2016;32(2):159–177.

[8] Eigen P. International corruption: Organized civil society for better global governance. Social Research (New York). 2013;80(4):1287–1308.

[9] Choi JW. Measuring the performance of an anticorruption agency: The case of the KPK in Indonesia. International Review of Public Administration. 2011;16(3):45–63.

[10] Priyatno D. Kebijaksanaan Legislasi tentang system pertanggungjawaban pidana Korporasi di Indonesia. Bandung: Utomo; 2004.

[11] Reksodiputro M. “Tindak Pidana Korporasi dan Pertanggungjawaban Pidananya.” Pusat Pelayanan Keadilan dan Pengabdian Hukum. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia; 1995.

[12] Kramer E. When news becomes entertainment: representations of corruption in Indonesia’s media and the implication of scandal. Media Asia. 2013;40(1):60–72.

[13] Ferreira A, Otley D. The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis. Management Accounting Research. 2009;20(4):263–282.

[14] Setiadi E. Hubungan Ideal Komisi Yudisial dan Mahkamah Agung. Wawasan Yuridika. 2021;5(2):161–176.

[15] Ravena D. Implikasi Nilai Keadilan Pembinaan Narapidana Di Indonesia. Scientica. 2013;1(1):76–84.