A Review of the Settlement Agreement for Economic Crimes from the Perspective of Dominus Litis
By: Dr. Sutrisno Margi Utomo, S.H., M.H.
A settlement for economic crimes is an out-of-court settlement in which the perpetrator pays a sum of money or a fine to the state, particularly in certain sectors such as taxes, customs, and excise duties.
This policy aims to quickly compensate the country’s economic losses without a lengthy judicial process. The fine is deposited into the state treasury as non-tax revenue (PNBP).
LATEST NEWS: Appreciation for North Sumatra obtaining an unqualified opinion for 12 consecutive years
Dominus Litis, the role of the public prosecutor as case manager, is a universal principle inherent to public prosecutors. As public prosecutors, public prosecutors play a central role in the criminal justice system. In a criminal justice system (such as in Indonesia), this principle is inherent to public prosecutors. This status grants them full authority to determine the direction of the case.
Article 35, paragraph (1), letter k of Act No. 16 of 2004 on the Public Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia, as amended by Act No. 11 of 2021 on the amendments to Act No. 16 of 2004 on the Public Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia, authorizes the application of settlement fines in the prosecution of economic crimes, which is considered an effective way to recover state losses.
LATEST NEWS: Kahiyang Ayu visits Japanese Consulate General in Medan and presents the charm of North Sumatra
The Public Prosecution Service has a legal basis for applying the settlement mechanism as an alternative to out-of-court settlement of cases. This is made possible by Article 66, paragraph 1 of Act No. 20 of 2025 on the new Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) and Article 35, paragraph 1, letter k of Act No. 11 of 2021 on the amendments to Act No. 16 of 2004 on the Public Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia.
Criminal fines must be paid in accordance with the court ruling. If payment is not made within the stipulated period (usually one month after the judgment has become final and binding), the assets of the convicted person may be seized and auctioned by the Public Prosecutor. If the convicted person has no assets, the fine is substituted for imprisonment or other penalties in accordance with applicable legislation.
The amount of the fine is determined by the Attorney General based on a calculation of state losses or the principal amount of the arrears.
This mechanism is a response to increasingly complex economic crimes, where conventional approaches based on criminal sanctions are no longer sufficient to meet the need for rapid recovery of state losses.
LATEST NEWS: PRSU 2026: An unmissable destination for families
This mechanism is not a form of exemption from criminal liability, but rather an instrument to ensure a more efficient recovery of state losses. Moreover, the frequently used punitive approach has limitations in resolving structural economic crimes.
Therefore, a more comprehensive approach is needed that does not focus exclusively on punishment.
This mechanism is not a form of impunity. Punishment alone will not address the core of the problem.
The author believes that settlement fines can offer a systemic solution to the country’s economic problems. However, this is only possible if they are supported by regulatory reforms that clarify the procedures and parameters for determining fines, and by strengthening the capacity of law enforcement to maintain national economic stability and sovereignty amidst global pressure on the capital market and the financial system.
LATEST NEWS: Mandrehe Health Center Modernized, Admission Facilities and Specialist Doctors Strengthened
Optimizing the settlement fine mechanism contributes not only directly to the recovery of public finances but also has broader implications for strengthening national economic stability.
I emphasize the importance of strengthening the authority of public prosecutors as bearers of the dominus litis principle in resolving economic crimes, while preserving the values of Pancasila: justice, efficiency, and legal certainty.
One of the innovations in this dissertation is the concept of a revision of the regulations concerning settlement fines by means of a more comprehensive formulation of definitions of economic crimes and settlement fines, establishing the classifications of economic crimes that can be resolved via the settlement fine mechanism, including corruption committed by companies.
And the proposal to standardize the amount of the settlement fine at 200 percent of the state’s losses, or based on calculations by economic experts for cases that harm the national economy.
LATEST NEWS: Residents of Nias proud of their excellent school
This dissertation also proposes strengthening the position of public prosecutors through specific regulations regarding economic crimes within the legal reform.
It is hoped that the results of this research will lead to ideas for legal reform that can strengthen the legal system for economic crimes in Indonesia, increase the effectiveness of recovering state damages, and benefit the public interest and national development to the maximum extent. ***
The author is a public prosecutor and currently heads the Public Prosecution Service of the Badung District, Bali.
**Note: This article is a dissertation submitted as a doctoral candidate in the Doctoral Program in Law at the Faculty of Law of Hasanuddin University, Makassar.
