Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Analysis of the concept of schikking as an alternative in the strategy for recovering state financial or economic losses Asmadi Syam1*.
Mohd.
Din1.
Sanusi Bintang1.
Gaussyah1.
Muhammad Irsan2 1 Faculty of Law.
Syiah Kuala University.
Indonesia.
2 Melbourne Law School.
University of Melbourne.
Australia.
*Corresponding Author: asmadisyam10@gmail.
Abstract Introduction to the Problem: The main issue in handling cases in the economic field is the recovery of the state's financial losses or the country's economy.
This is due to the orientation of law enforcement, which always focuses on imposing imprisonment as a deterrent.
As a result, fines that are imposed are often substituted with The criminal justice process, which ultimately leads to imprisonment, is considered ineffective and incurs high costs.
Through the authority of schikking, it is considered as one of the alternative solutions.
However, in practice, it still generates various reactions, including assumptions that it does not effectively deter perpetrators from committing crimes.
Purpose/Study Objectives: This research aims to examine and explain the perspective of schikking in handling economic criminal acts.
Through the imposition of schikking, can financial losses or the state's economy be effectively and efficiently Design/Methodology/Approach: The research method used is normative juridical research, a type of legal research that examines the systematics of law, identifying key concepts in law, and analyzing prevailing norms and principles in legal science.
Findings: The research findings indicate that the concept of schikking views economic crimes as the cause of economic disruption in the country, so the prosecution must prioritize the recovery of state losses.
As one of the sentencing systems and part of the attorney general's opportunity, schikking can be applied to crimes that have a broad impact on the country's economy.
The implementation of schikking is considered effective and efficient in reducing state expenditures, taking into account the costs and benefits of handling economic cases.
Additionally, schikking provides a mutually beneficial solution for the parties by giving the perpetrator an opportunity to constructively demonstrate their capacity and qualities.
Schikking does not completely eliminate the element of deterrence, but rather simplifies the criminal justice system by offering a more efficient and adaptable solution, without sacrificing the core goals of law enforcement, restoring economic losses, and ensuring substantive justice.
Paper Type: Research Article Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
Keywords: Schikking.
Recovery.
State.
Financial.
Economy Copyright A2025 by Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.
0 International License.
All writings published in this journal are the personal views of the authors and do not represent the views of this journal and the author's affiliated Introduction Regarding the recovery of financial losses to the state or the state's economy, it is still considered ineffective.
The effectiveness of recovering financial losses to the state due to corruption crimes is far from satisfactory.
The failure to recover financial losses to the state is marked by the increasing value of unrecoverable losses to the state from year to year.
This is caused by the lack of applicable laws in the effort to recover financial losses to the state because the existing legal formulations are no longer relevant or cannot reach the scope of confiscating the assets of corruptors, thus judges are limited in imposing penalties related to the recovery of these losses to the state.
This has an impact on hindering the equitable development of the economy and hindering foreign investors because rulers and conglomerates use land to benefit certain groups (Rahman & Husnul, 2.
Based on Supreme Court decision data, a comparison of corruption costs and financial penalties for corruption cases from 2001-2015 shows that the total financial penalty demanded by the prosecutor is only 44% of the explicit corruption costs.
Of that amount, only 7,3% of the explicit corruption costs were finally sentenced by the judge (Zulaiha & Angraeni, 2.
Table 1.
Data On Charges and Financial Punishment Decisions Scale of Number of Total state Petty Rp.
108,4 M
Small Rp.
6,3 B
Medium Rp.
101,3 B
Large Rp.
735, 5 B
Massive Rp.
72,2 T
Total Rp.
73,1 T
Source : Zulaiha & Angraeni .
Total Financial Penalty Demanded by Prosecutor Total Financial Penalty Imposed by Supreme Court The data above at least shows the paradigm of law enforcement in Indonesia, which still focuses on state losses and does not consider the explicit corruption costs that the state has to bear because they are not charged to the perpetrators.
The state's burden is then transferred to the public in the form of increased tax rates.
Thus, the Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
social cost of crime is ultimately borne by the public, making them the most disadvantaged party in the crimes that occur (Zulaiha & Angraeni, 2.
The judicial process, which has so far focused on deterrence through the imposition of imprisonment within the criminal justice system, has actually increased the costs borne by the state.
Meanwhile, it is still highly possible to minimize these costs through the role of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia.
The Attorney General's Office, as one of the sub-systems of the criminal justice system in Indonesia, has a strategic role in law and justice enforcement.
Prosecutors led by the Attorney General, who holds the mandate of the dominus litis principle (US Legal, n.
), are required to be wiser and more responsive to the times, especially in formulating law and justice enforcement policies.
This aligns with the paradigm of progressive law.
Law enforcement, and indeed all of us, should have the courage to break away from the traditional legal enforcement approach that relies solely on statutory regulations an-sich.
Law is not merely an empty space devoid of non-legal concepts.
It must also be viewed from a social perspective, considering real behaviors that are tangible and acceptable to all individuals within society (Rahardjo, 2.
To make law and justice enforcement more effective, the Attorney General's Office must be able to resolve the handling of a case, one of which is through restoration (Syam et al.
, 2.
Suppose a case is related to social community.
In that case, it must be able to restore the conflict caused by the crime, or if the case handling is related to state financial or economic losses, it must be able to achieve the recovery of state finances, as in the handling of economic crimes and corruption (Ruhiyat et al.
, 2.
This imperative is particularly salient given the pervasive nature of economic crime, especially corruption in Indonesia, which severely compromises stability, security, and economic development (Sinaryati, 2.
The enactment of the new revision of the Attorney General's Office law seems to have provided a solution to this legal phenomenon because, in handling economic crimes, the Attorney General's Office has a special authority, namely the effort to impose schikking.
According to Article 35.
of Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, as amended by Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning he Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, it is stated that: AuThe Attorney General has the duty and authority to handle criminal acts that cause economic losses to the state and can use schikking economic crimes based on the legislationAy.
In the explanation of Article 35.
, what is meant by schikking is termination of cases outside the court by paying a fine agreed upon by the Attorney General.
The Attorney GeneralAos Office authority to implement schikking through a responsive and restorative paradigm aligns with the objectives of sentencing as outlined in the Indonesian National Criminal Code (Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Cod.
, specifically in Article 51 .
These provisions essentially state that the purpose of sentencing is to resolve conflicts, restore balance, bring security and peace Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
to society, foster a sense of remorse, and relieve the guilt of the convicted individual.
This national criminal law has reformulated the fundamental concept of sentencing, shifting from a deterrence-oriented approach to a restorative justice model.
A trial of this new authority was immediately applied by the Attorney General's Office in handling the case of cooking oil smuggling abroad through the Tanjung Priok Port by PT Amin Market Jaya (AMJ) in 2021-2022.
The prosecution of this case was discontinued with the approval of the imposition of a Shickking by the Attorney General, amounting to IDR 4,800,000,000 .
our billion eight hundred million rupia.
(Pasaribu, 2.
The resolution of this case with the imposition of a Shickking at least leaves academic questions and public debate, particularly regarding the position of the prosecution service in handling economic crimes, whether it acts solely as a public prosecutor or also has the authority as an investigator.
This is because, explicitly, the prosecution service is only authorized to investigate corruption crimes, money laundering offenses with corruption as a predicate crime, forestry crimes, and gross human rights violations.
Additionally, questions arise regarding the implementation of schikking, as it has traditionally been applied only to economic offenses classified as violations in Article 29 of the Rechten Ordonnantie (Emergency Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 1951 Concerning Amendments to the Rechtenordonnantie.
Staatsblad 1882 No.
240 Jo.
Staatsblad 1931 No.
47, 1.
and crimes punishable solely by fines in Article 82 of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Law Number 1 of 1946 concerning Regulations on Criminal Law of 1.
Problems at the practical level need to be solved.
Existing research on the concept of recovering state financial losses as the purpose of handling cases through the concept of schikking has so far tended to describe the scope or object of economic crimes (Munthe, 2.
, problems in recovering state financial losses through additional penalties (Wardanie, 2.
, recovery of state financial losses through asset confiscation either through criminal or civil mechanisms (Nelson, 2.
, the meaning of the concept of state economy (Firmansyah, 2.
, application of restorative justice concepts (Madjid & Istiqomah, 2.
, alternative solutions to financial crime cases involving state-owned enterprises to maximize state financial recovery (Ariyanny et , 2.
, implementation of schikking in the Indonesian criminal justice system (Mamengko, 2.
, and implementation of fines in environmental crimes (Naibaho & Purba, 2.
Generally, these various studies have not examined the essence of the application of schikking as one of the solutions to recover state financial or economic losses, highlighting the importance of this study.
Based on the explanation above, this research seeks to elaborate on the perspective of the schikking concept in resolving economic crimes.
The key question explored is whether the imposition of schikking serves as a viable solution or is considered the most effective and efficient method for recovering financial or economic losses suffered by the state.
The novelty of this research lies in developing a theory of criminal sentencing, by positioning the schikking as a system of punishment that does Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
not necessarily require a judicial decision to achieve the goals of sentencing.
Concurrently, this research also offers a concrete concept for the immediate, effective, and efficient recovery of state losses through the schikking mechanism.
The justification for the concept of schikking is not limited to minor economic crimes but also has the potential to be applied to all economic offenses, subject to certain conditions, which will be constructed within the findings of this research.
Methodology The research method used is normative juridical research, a type of legal research that examines the systematics of law, identifying key concepts in law, and analyzing prevailing norms and principles in legal science.
The data used is secondary data obtained through library research.
The legal materials used consist of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials.
The data obtained is then analyzed by providing conceptual views and conclusions to answer the raised This research is carried out by evaluating the concept of schikking and its normative applicability within Indonesia's criminal justice system.
The concept and its norms are then systematically analyzed using a structured approach that includes legislative, conceptual, case-based, historical, and comparative methods.
This analysis is further interpreted through legal reasoning and presented with logical arguments to determine whether schikking is an effective and efficient mechanism for recovering financial or economic losses to the state.
Results and Discussion Perspective of Schikking in Resolving Economic Crimes The regulation of schikking as an alternative method for resolving cases is not a new concept within Indonesia's criminal justice system, even though it is not explicitly outlined in formal criminal law, specifically the Criminal Procedure Code.
Article 82 of the Indonesian Penal Code already recognizes out-of-court settlements, applicable only for minor offenses through the payment of the highest fine, often referred to as This makes the institution of schikking transactions an acceptable reason for dismissing cases on policy grounds (Syam, 2.
According to Article 29 of the Rechten ordonnantie on out of court settlements, it AuTo avoid court prosecution for all offenses under this ordinance, as long as they are not considered crimes, the Minister of Finance can settle or instruct to settle.
In cases of negligence where similar authority is applicable, the power is given to the heads of offices, and in places where the regulation does not apply, it is given to the regional heads of the Directorate General of Customs and Excise.
Ay The term for out of court settlements is known by several terms, including Andi Hamzah, who refers to it as dading: peace, consultation .
, peaceful settlement .
, adjustment .
, agreement to end an ongoing case, or to prevent a case from arising.
The peace agreement must be made in writing and has Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
the force of a final decision between both parties .
racht van gewijsd.
In some disputes, making peace is not allowed, such as disputes over rights not under the parties' control as mentioned in Articles 1857-1864.
This term is also known in the Civil Code, economic crimes in Indonesia .
specially smuggling crime.
(Hamzah.
It is also referred to as afdoening buiten proces.
In practice, schikking is commonly done due to the difficulty of finding evidence according to formal rules while it is known that economic crimes have occurred.
Additionally, state losses can be quickly recovered through schikking and other reasons based on the specific The principle means an out-of-court settlement when a crime that is only threatened with a fine has been violated (Barama, 2.
The application of schikking within IndonesiaAos criminal justice system has been confined to minor offences.
This restriction is expressly set out in Article 2.
of Emergency Law No.
7 of 1955 concerning the Investigation.
Prosecution, and Adjudication of Economic Crimes, which provides that intentional economic crimes are classified as felonies, whereas unintentional ones are treated as violations.
The adoption of the new Attorney GeneralAos Office Act has broadened the scope of schikking, reinforcing its role as an extension of the Attorney GeneralAos discretionary authority under the principle of opportunity.
As a result, schikking may now be applied to a wider spectrum of economic crimes, irrespective of whether they fall within the category of violations or felonies, provided they are legally regulated.
In essence, the distinction between violations and felonies .
lthough embedded in the Wetboek van Strafrech.
is not decisive.
what matters is the moral blameworthiness of the conduct that renders it legally proscribed.
This view resonates with Gregory AntillAos observation that criminal law has never sought to capture every gradation of culpability (Antill, 2.
Likewise, it is unnecessary to dissect a chain of acts to determine whether each was intentional.
The more pertinent inquiry concerns the underlying motivesAiwhy the act was committed and what preferences or objectives guided the offender (Stone, 2.
From this perspective, the core aim of law enforcement should be the comprehensive resolution of criminal acts, including the restoration of the harm they produce.
Nowadays, the role of the judiciary as a means of resolving cases and controlling state institutions or individuals, as well as a guardian of the rule of law, is very important (Shabalin et al.
, 2.
In principle, all criminal acts cannot have their judicial process halted because the Criminal Procedure Code, as the main procedural foundation, adheres to the principle of legality (Syam, 2.
Criminal law enforcement, whether in Civil Law or Common Law systems, applies the principle of criminal liability, which requires that a person be declared guilty of a crime through a court decision (Banjo et al.
, 2.
However, in practice, it is possible to have settlements outside of court Although formal courts cannot be ignored as a necessity in modern society to resolve cases, decisions from formal courts often result in adverse Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
consequences for the parties involved and disrupt their reconciliation (Mansur et al.
The losses and threats to reconciliation are clearly inconsistent with the paradigm of responsive legal theory, which asserts that: Good law should offer more than just legal It must be competent and just, capable of recognizing public aspirations, and committed to achieving substantive justice (Nonet & Selznick, 2.
Progressive law serves as a correction to the weaknesses of modern legal systems, which are often burdened by bureaucracy, and seeks to liberate itself from the dominance of liberal legal frameworks (Rahardjo, 2.
Thus, responsive law advocates for meaningful law enforcement, emphasizing restorative approaches and the realization of substantive justice, aligning with the fundamental objectives of From the perspective of the schikking concept as a mechanism for resolving cases, it is a concept of case termination that meets the requirements to be submitted to the court, but is not submitted or requested for trial by the public prosecutor for certain In the Indonesian legal system, the only institution with the authority to prosecute and control cases is the Prosecutor's Office, which is known as the principle of dominus litis.
The term dominus litis means the party who makes the decisions in a lawsuit.
Etymologically, dominus litis refers to the party who has the authority to make all decisions in prosecution.
The principle of dominus litis in the context of the criminal justice system teaches that the prosecutor or public prosecutor must have the authority to make all decisions in prosecution, including the application of legal provisions and proposed criminal sanctions.
Furthermore, the examination and limitation of the prosecutor's authority lie within the judicial institution's authority, which is exercised by the judge (Riyanta, 2.
Therefore, the principle of dominus litis, which is part of the principle of opportunity exercised by the Attorney General .
ncluding case dismissal in the public interes.
, should also be interpreted as a manifestation of the principle of a fast, simple, and low-cost judicial process.
In this context, the application of schikking serves as a costbenefit efficiency measure in case handling within the judicial system, ensuring a phased approach from the initiation of proceedings to the final court decision.
Law enforcement in Indonesia has encountered several problems, such as its implementation, law enforcers, and case backlogs in the courts (Djawas et al.
, 2.
The classic problems of the Indonesian judicial system revolve around justice and the lack of beneficial reach.
Likewise, the handling of economic crimes, such as corruption, has failed to realize the recovery of state financial losses because the perpetrators do not want to pay restitution, feeling they have already been punished with imprisonment.
Perpetrators prefer to serve a subsidiary prison term rather than pay restitution.
The high cost of handling cases also adds to the swelling of state Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
On the other hand, efforts to establish a stronger legal instrument, such as an asset forfeiture law, have yet to materialize.
The above disparities in law enforcement are one of the reasons for reaffirming the authority for schikking in the revision of the Prosecutor's Law.
This is also related to the strategic role of the Prosecutor's Office in the criminal justice subsystem, which must be able to realize effective law enforcement and justice.
The formulation of law enforcement and justice policies, as the authority of the Attorney General based on Article 35 letter a of Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor's Office, must be able to realize the objectives of the law itself, namely, justice, certainty, and benefit.
Policy implementation as a follow-up step from the policy-making process is an implementation to achieve the goals set, whether by certain organizations, officials, or the government (Dahlan et al.
One of these important roles is how the strategic role of the Prosecutor's Office can restore the impact caused by criminal acts to achieve restorative justice.
The impact of a criminal act can result in state economic losses, so there needs to be a formulation as a preventive measure against the widespread impact of such acts while upholding human rights and the public interest.
The current law enforcement paradigm for economic crimes adheres to a conventional paradigm, namely retributive justice (Yudisticia, 2.
This retributive justice theory legitimizes punishment as a means of retribution for the crimes committed by an individual.
Crime is viewed as an immoral and indecent act in therefore, criminals must be punished.
This view of retributive justice theory becomes inconsistent with the main goal of eradicating corruption, which is currently an obstacle to efforts to recover state losses or the national economy through the recovery of state assets in corruption crimes in Indonesia (Aleksandar, 1.
Therefore, the paradigm of retributive justice, which focuses on looking backward to justify punishment solely based on past wrongdoing, must be complemented by a forward-looking approach in enforcing economic crime laws.
This is where restorative justice comes into play as a sentencing objective, emphasizing the consideration of all relevant aspects beyond mere retribution.
The perspective of microeconomic analysis on state financing in law enforcement, particularly regarding corruption crimes, highlights the failure of repressive law to fulfill the ideals of certainty, justice, and benefit for all Indonesian people.
Therefore, there is a need to reorient law enforcement in corruption cases from being repressive to being more responsive or restorative (Atmasasmita & Wibowo, 2.
The use of the restorative justice concept in criminal case resolution offers a different perspective on resolving a case (Purba, 2.
The primary focus of restorative justice is for the offender to take responsibility for their actions, rather than on the punishment imposed.
Importantly, it ensures that the victim receives justice, allowing the situation to be restored (Amdani, 2.
Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
The implementation of schikking in economic crimes is a form of applying the principle of opportunity possessed by the Attorney General in prosecuting tax, customs, excise, and other economic crimes based on the law (Sitompul, 2.
The concept of schikking in the Attorney General's Law aligns with the concept of resolving criminal cases through the restorative justice mechanism.
This is done by prioritizing benefit .
, considering the principles of quick, simple, and low-cost justice .
ontante justiti.
, and the principle of criminal punishment as a last resort .
ltimum remediu.
(Manullang, 2.
In criminal law, the principle of ultimum remedium dictates that alternative sanctions should be considered first before imposing strict criminal penalties.
Criminal law should only be applied as a last resort, when other legal mechanisms prove insufficient (Abdurrachman et al.
, 2.
Figure 1.
Elaboration on the Concept of Schikking as One of the Penal Systems through the Subsystem of Criminal Justice Source: Author's constructions.
From the elaboration of the concept of schikking above, it depicts that schikking can be categorized as one form of penal system.
This argument also counters the statement that when discussing penalization, its conclusion must be in the judge's it is the judge who has the authority to determine or apply such penal The conventional concept defines judiciary as everything or a process carried out in the Court related to the task of examining, deciding, and adjudicating cases by applying the law and/or finding the law in concreto .
he judge applies legal rules to concrete matters presented to them for trial and judgmen.
to uphold and ensure the compliance with substantive law, using procedural methods stipulated by formal law (Pramesti, 2.
This definition certainly is not relevant when confronted with the understanding of the criminal justice system, which consists of subsystems (Police.
Public Prosecutors.
Judge.
Each subsystem of the criminal justice system has authority in the perspective of case resolution, especially the authority of prosecutors to terminate cases for the sake of the living law within society.
The authority of Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
prosecutors to terminate cases for the sake of the law is one of the mechanisms for resolving cases in the Indonesian criminal justice system.
Elaboration of the concept of schikking based on the principle of opportunity is certainly different from the concept of resolving cases outside the judiciary, such as settlement through customary institutions in Aceh.
Although the essence of their goal is the same, restoration.
Resolving cases outside the judiciary does not involve the authority of the criminal justice subsystems or is never directed towards the formal criminal justice resolution process, while schikking involves a mechanism of authority process of the criminal justice system, as explained above, the process is within the circle of the formal criminal justice process.
This is in line with the understanding of schikking in Article 35.
of Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning the Amendment to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Public Prosecution Service, which states, schikking means the termination of cases outside the court by paying a fine agreed upon by the Attorney General.
Termination of cases outside the court does not mean termination of cases outside the judiciary, in that sense, the case still goes through the criminal justice system process, and the fine agreed upon by the Attorney General can be said to be one form of sanctions against perpetrators of economic crimes.
The concept of schikking, as outlined above, has its own perspective in resolving economic criminal cases, emphasizing justice and legal utility.
This is in line with the opinion of Romli Atmasasmita, who states: Understanding and considering microeconomic analysis in criminal law can be said to be an effort of engineering society and bureaucracy from the theory of development law to create reforms that are able to transform previously corrupt bureaucracies into highly moral ones (Atmasasmita & Wibowo, 2.
The principle of microeconomics, namely efficiency, balance, and maximization, is harmonized with the principles of justice, certainty, and Firstly.
Justice is matched with efficiency (Justice seekers have obtained tangible results from the judicial proces.
and balance .
ationally, criminals have received the best punishmen.
Secondly.
Legal certainty is matched with balance .
he expected gains from the crime have been enjoyed by imposing proportional punishment for the crime's losse.
, and utility is matched with maximization, meaning law enforcement has provided maximum benefits for the interests of legal protection and certainty for justice seekers (Atmasasmita & Wibowo, 2.
Rejecting the concept of schikking risks reinforcing the image of law enforcement as a AuspiderAos web,Ay where only the weak are ensnared while the powerful evade For this reason, its use requires solid theoretical justification.
The validity of legal truth can be assessed through three major theories: correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism (Titus et al.
, 1.
Correspondence Theory views truth as the conformity between a statement and the object to which it refers.
In epistemological terms, it represents the unity of subject and object (Bakhtiar, 2.
From this perspective, schikking is legitimate Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
only if it is consistent with existing legal provisions and the strict conditions they Article 35.
of Law No.
16 of 2004 on the ProsecutorAos Office, as amended by Law No.
11 of 2021, confines schikking to tax offenses, customs violations, and other economic crimes.
It cannot be applied to other categories of crime and remains the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney General.
Its legality, therefore, is firmly anchored in statutory authority.
Coherence Theory holds that truth is established through the consistency and mutual reinforcement of judgments (Bakhtiar, 2.
Accordingly, schikking must be coherent with the broader objectives of justice.
Its application in economic crime should rest on philosophical justification, ensuring that all qualifying cases have equal access to settlement through schikking, regardless of whether negotiations ultimately succeed.
Consistency in practice is key to securing public trust and acceptance of schikking as a legitimate component of criminal case Pragmatic Theory emphasizes contextual and outcome-oriented reasoning.
regards judicial decision-making as eclectic, practical, and focused on results rather than strict adherence to norms (Spaak, 2.
In this light, schikking is tied to the principle of recovery, particularly in addressing economic losses borne by the state.
Where criminal acts undermine state finances or economic stability, the priority should be to restore balance rather than merely impose penalties.
The validity of schikking is thus measured by its effectiveness in delivering concrete Unlike theories that privilege procedural legality, pragmatism stresses the outcomes achieved for both justice and law enforcement.
This approach recognizes that economic crimes inflict material harm, requiring solutions that go beyond punitive sanctions to practical mechanisms of restoration.
The reform of criminal policy in tackling economic crimes requires a mechanism that integrates various societal forces, including economic, political, and cultural aspects.
This integration aims to foster a productive and cooperative process within society.
These societal forces are further detailed into several socio-legal aspects, such as social policy .
s outlined in RPJM and RPJP), social welfare/prosperity policies, social defense/security policies, legal policies, economic criminal law policies, and an integrated legal policy framework (Fadri, 2.
Thus, the concept of schikking views crimes in the economic field as causing losses or disruptions to the national economy, so the prosecution of perpetrators of such crimes is not enough with a repressive orientation alone.
solutions must be sought to restore the impact of these crimes.
Schikking as one alternative for case resolution provides an opportunity for perpetrators to restore the losses to their original state, even imposing and fostering a sense of responsibility on the perpetrator to reimburse the costs incurred by the state during the case resolution.
Therefore, in economic analysis, schikking is an ideal concept for resolving economic cases, reducing state expenditures that would be greater if the case were brought to court for trial.
Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
Effectiveness and Efficiency of Recovering Financial or National Economic Losses Through Schikking The current economic losses are closely related to the handling of corruption crimes, where the economic losses of the state are one of the elements in Article 2 .
and Article 3 of the Corruption Crime Law, which is a "distinctive" offense unique to Indonesia.
Handling of corruption crimes that result in economic losses to the state has so far been carried out only by the Public Prosecution Service and has not been undertaken by other authorized agencies, such as the Indonesian National Police (POLRI) or the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), with case data as follows:
Table 2.
Data on the Handling of Corruption Cases Affecting the National Economy by the Prosecutor's Office Corruption case Defendant Status Corruption case of textile Irianto Inckracht (Legally importation in the Batam Free Bindin.
Trade Zone 2 Corruption case of textile Handoko Inckracht (Legally importation through the Tanjung Bindin.
Emas Semarang Port 3 Corruption case of opening palm Suryadarmadi Inckracht (Legally oil plantation land by Duta Palma Bindin.
Group Source: Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes.
Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia .
From a legal perspective, illegal gain is essentially the act of obtaining profit illegally.
From an economic perspective, it's referred to as black money, which refers to profits obtained in violation of laws governing economic activity (Anggriawan & Susila.
The concept of the national economy emphasizes that every perpetrator who gains illegal profits, whether from damaging the environment to gain additional benefits or from depriving the social rights of the surrounding community, should be held accountable.
In practice, in economic criminal acts, whether broadly or narrowly interpreted, the main financial factor of the perpetrator is always the trigger for unlawful behavior.
The balance between economic development goals and social and environmental welfare is increasingly becoming a difficult component to unite (Daryanti et al.
, 2.
Therefore, law enforcement against economic crimes must be interpreted as an effort to promote economic development and social welfare, rather than simply providing a deterrent effect on perpetrators.
The question then narrows down to what punishment is actually most effective for crimes closely related to financial matters.
Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
From the perspective of law analysis, financial penalties are considered quite effective for crimes that impact the nation's economy.
This argument stems from the fact that financial penalties have two characteristics: .
Fines are not only a consequence of the crime but also include the calculation of case handling costs, thus causing a Deterrence Effect, and .
perpetrators subjected to fines can still remain productive and contribute to the economy (Sugianto, n.
Likewise, in the economic sector, fiscal recovery efforts are aimed at restoring the nation's economy.
Restorative justice and fiscal recovery are crucial aspects to be realized in handling crimes that result in economic losses to the nation.
To achieve a balance between restorative justice and fiscal recovery, criminal procedural law must be responsive by providing means to settle cases outside the court (Gunawan, 2.
Schikking as an alternative law enforcement approach for economic crimes should not be limited to merely recovering financial losses.
It must also include additional penalties in the form of fines, ensuring that it still serves a deterrent function.
Studies have shown that imposing imprisonment for economic and business crimes is often Furthermore, longer prison sentences do not necessarily enhance deterrence (Mulyana, 2.
Incarceration primarily serves to incapacitate offenders by separating them from society but often fails to fulfill other penal objectives, such as retribution, rehabilitation, social reintegration, or deterrence (Posner, 1.
Professor Agus Surono of Pancasila University mentioned at a national seminar on the Bhakti Adhyaksa Day in Aceh (Merza, 2.
"Paying a schikking for economic crime perpetrators is one legal measure that can deter It is important to impose schikking to recover state assets.
Most countries with high corruption indicators have already moved away from prison sentences.
According to Agus, perpetrators would be more afraid if the assets from economic crimes are reclaimed by the state, as it would have a more deterrent effect on them.
In line with Agus Surono's opinion.
Topo Santoso, a professor at the University of Indonesia, also stated: schikking can be used in economic crimes that cause losses to the nation's economy, and this is very much in line with a non-conventional approach (Sutiawan, 2.
Given that the primary motive behind business crimes is financial gain, monetary penalties should be considered a viable alternative.
However, these fines should be accompanied by corporate governance reforms to ensure compliance and prevent future offenses.
In the United States, economic crime cases have led to judges mandating certified compliance officers and requiring corporations to pay fines to the state as part of their legal obligations (Mulyana, 2.
Similarly, in the Netherlands, legal practices have shifted away from custodial sentences in favor of monetary fines (Arief, 1.
This shift aligns with the principle of integrative law enforcement, where fines are calculated based on actual financial damages plus accompanying socio-economic impacts (Mulyana, 2.
Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
Regarding the mechanism for using schikking, historically, the Attorney General has delegated authority to use schikking in economic crimes to the Minister of Finance, but only for administrative violations and not for criminal offenses (Mamengko.
However, with the development based on Law Number 7 of 2021 on Tax and Excise Regulation Harmonization, it is stated that: The Attorney General may use schikking in criminal cases in the field of taxation and excise.
In Article 44B paragraph .
and its explanation, it essentially regulates that the Attorney General may terminate the investigation of criminal acts in the field of taxation at the request of the Minister of Finance as long as the criminal case has not been referred to the court (Gunawan, 2.
Looking at the provisions of Article 2 .
of Government Regulation Number 54 of 2023 concerning the Termination of Criminal Investigation in the Field of Excise for the Benefit of State Revenue, for the benefit of state revenue, at the request of the minister or designated official, the Attorney General may terminate the criminal investigation in the field of excise for a maximum period of 6 .
months from the date of the request.
The termination of the investigation is carried out after the person pays an administrative sanction of 4 .
times the amount of excise that should have been paid.
This provision is also one form of using schikking by the Attorney General for the benefit of state revenue.
Furthermore.
IndonesiaAos new Penal Code (National Criminal Cod.
recognizes that prosecution can be annulled if the maximum fine is voluntarily paid (Article 132, letters d and .
This provision serves as the legal foundation for the prosecution's authority to enforce schikking at the indictment stage.
The explanatory section of Article 132 further clarifies that prosecution begins at the investigation stage, indicating that the investigative and prosecutorial processes are not separate but rather integrated into a unified legal framework (Kejaksaan Tinggi Daerah Khusus Jakarta et al.
, 2.
The National Penal Code solidifies the prosecutorial authority .
ominus liti.
of the Attorney General's Office, positioning it as the central institution in Indonesia's criminal justice system.
Consequently, the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code should align with the policy direction of the new Penal Code, including provisions on schikking mechanisms.
The existence of various new provisions in the use of the concept of schikking has also expanded the legitimacy of using schikking besides those regulated in economic crime laws, which are only violations.
As mentioned by Andi Hamzah (Hamzah, 1.
"In the past, the Attorney General also settled cases outside the proceedings for crimes that were not limited to violations of recht ordonnantie but also violations of foreign exchange ordonnantie .
hich has been repeale.
"This is indeed in accordance with the unlimited opportunistic reasons not only for violations but for all offenses.
It should be noted that the reason for using the opportunistic principle to settle a case is for the public interest.
So, the argument for the public interest must be clear and objectively Ay Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
The use of schikking differs from Plea Bargaining.
Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA), and Penal Mediation.
In plea bargaining and DPA, although agreements occur outside the trial, they still require judicial approval.
This is unlike the use of schikking, where the final decision is based on the Attorney General's or the designated official's Furthermore, the difference between the use of schikking and penal mediation lies in the absence of a mediator as a third-party mediating between the perpetrator and the victim.
Instead, the legal relationship that occurs is between the perpetrator and the Attorney General (Gunawan, 2.
A concrete example of the use of schikking in the Indonesian criminal justice system is the resolution of a case involving the smuggling of cooking oil abroad through the Tanjung Priok Port by PT Amin Market Jaya (AMJ) in 2021-2022.
The prosecution of this case was terminated based on a hierarchical request to the Attorney General through letter Number R-55/M.
11/Fu.
2104/2023 dated April 10, 2023, which was subsequently approved.
The termination of the case prosecution through the use of a peaceful fine has had a positive impact on the effectiveness of law enforcement and justice, both in terms of the cost and benefit of case handling and the immediate recovery of state financial losses due to the peaceful fine paid by the suspect.
Ay The imposition of schikking still prioritizes the interests of the victim, involves communication between the perpetrator and the victim, restores conditions for the victim and society, and involves community groups.
The main principle in this resolution is to make the criminal offender accountable for rectifying the damage caused by their actions, providing an opportunity for the criminal to prove their capacity and quality, in addition to addressing their guilt constructively by involving the victims, parents, extended family, schools, and peers, creating a forum to collaborate in solving problems and establishing a direct and real relationship between the offense and formal social reactions.
In line with the perspective of restorative justice, which emphasizes the needs of those involved in the crime, such as crime victims, perpetrators, and society, as its goal is not to satisfy the principles of written law or punish the perpetrator (Aiyub, 2.
The concept of recovering state economic losses through the imposition of schikking is quite effective because the implementation of schikking takes into account the most relevant and effective Besides being significant in the process of national economic recovery, it also provides a win-win solution for the suspect and/or defendant.
Legal cases should undergo annotation or even examination that extends beyond traditional legal theories and practices (Posner, 2.
As Posner emphasized, legal decision-making should incorporate economic efficiency principles, ensuring that resources are allocated to maximize societal value.
In economic analysis of law, efficiency focuses on ethical considerations in social decision-making that ultimately affect public welfare (Posner, 1.
The concept of schikking as authority for the prosecution is mandated by Article 35 paragraph 1 letter k of the Prosecution Law and represents a shift in the paradigm of handling crimes, not only focusing on state Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
losses but also serving as an alternative instrument for resolving cases that harm the national economy.
Resolution through this mechanism can be an effective dispute resolution, especially when linked to the recovery of incurred losses.
Figure 2.
Illustration of the effective and efficient flow of the concept of schikking.
Source : Author's construction The flowchart above reflects the effectiveness and efficiency of the concept of imposing fines as a means of recovering financial losses or restoring the economy of a country.
On the other hand, the cost-benefit analysis of a case is also influenced by the use of the schikking concept.
The state can reduce operational costs related to prosecution, execution of convicts, procurement of evidence, and operational costs related to confiscating convicts' assets.
Additionally, prosecutors do not need to face the complexity of searching for the assets of criminal perpetrators to facilitate the payment of compensation.
Rooted in the utilitarian principle of maximizing societal welfare, the economic analysis of law elevates efficiency to a paramount criterion for evaluating legal rules.
Consequently, a positive analysis within this framework requires an examination of a policy's broader economic effects, as well as a detailed inquiry into the incentive structures it establishes, which are critical for predicting real-world outcomes (Ibrahim, 2.
Mapping the concept of fines in the resolution of economic crimes focuses on costbenefit analysis.
The primary consideration is whether the policy or change provides sufficient benefits to those affected by the change, or whether the change provides compensation balanced with the losses resulting from the policy (Kaldor-Hicks Efficienc.
(Ibrahim, 2.
For example, case handling in Environmental Pollution Analysis: Assessment of Corporate Criminal Liability by Hariman Satria.
Imposing sanctions such as the closure of companies, as happened with PT DEI, must consider its impacts, such as employee layoffs and the interests of shareholders (Satria, 2.
Decisions regarding the imposition of Shikking must be balanced with the losses and impact on the country's economic stability.
Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
In terms of objectives and effectiveness, the use of schikking aligns well with the advancements in modern law enforcement.
The focus of law enforcement has shifted from merely imposing punitive measures and deterring individuals to emphasizing restoration and utility.
The principle of peace emphasizes restoring the situation to its original state and addressing the damages caused, rather than solely on The author believes that the controversies and challenges surrounding the implementation of schikking must be approached with prudence.
If we assume that schikking is a legitimate exercise of the Attorney GeneralAos discretionary authority .
, then its application in cases of economic crimes or offenses that harm the national economy must be clearly defined, objective, and subject to measurable To ensure legal certainty, the following criteria should be established:
The offender is either a first-time offender or a corporate legal entity.
Crime has a broad economic impact on the national economy, such as:
Environmental and forestry crimes that require ecological restoration Crimes affecting essential goods industries .
, food productio.
, where continued prosecution may disrupt production, leading to domestic supply Economic crimes as defined under Article 35.
of Law No.
16 of 2004 on the Attorney GeneralAos Office .
s amended by Law No.
11 of 2.
Crimes regulated under Emergency Law No.
7 of 1955 concerning investigation.
Prosecution, and Trial of Economic Crimes, and their changes, whether stated as violations or crimes The decision to impose schikking is solely the prerogative of the Attorney General, in accordance with the principle of opportunity.
The decision must be made after obtaining expert opinions from relevant government institutions, such as:
Bank Indonesia/OJK .
or banking-related offense.
Ministry of Environment and Forestry .
or environmental crime.
Ministry of Trade .
or trade-related offense.
If schikking is applied at the investigation stage, the highest-ranking investigator must directly seek approval from the Attorney General.
Justice is one of the goals of law that has received significant emphasis in the development of legal philosophy.
Besides justice, other goals of law are legal certainty and utility (Salle et al.
, 2.
By establishing clear, objective, and well-defined criteria, the application of schikking will provide legal certainty and ensure that cases resolved through this mechanism adhere to principles of justice and effective law This framework will justify schikking as a legitimate policy tool for optimizing legal enforcement and achieving substantive justice.
Syam.
Din.
Bintang.
Gaussyah.
Irsan
Jurnal Hukum
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
Conclusion From the schikking perspective, economic crimes are seen as causing losses or disruptions to the national economy, so their prosecution must consider the immediate recovery of the losses incurred.
Schikking can be deemed to be one of the sentencing systems, even though the case is resolved out of court.
The amicable fine, which was previously only applied in minor criminal offenses, has evolved into an opportunity for the Attorney General that can be applied to offenses with a wideranging impact on the national economy.
The application of schikking is considered effective and efficient in reducing state expenditures, considering the costs and benefits of handling cases.
Therefore, in economic analysis, schikking is an ideal concept for resolving economic cases.
Beside recovering state losses, schikking provides a mutually beneficial solution for the perpetrators by giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their capacity and quality, while also constructively addressing their guilt.
It is recommended that regulations be established for the implementation of schikking in legislation, and that the binding legal force of a schikking be clarified.
This paper concludes that the application of schikking does not completely eliminate the deterrent element, but rather shortens the judicial process, so that the case does not need to go thru legal proceedings until a court decision.
Thus.
Settlement offers a more efficient and adaptive solution, without sacrificing the core goals of law enforcement, recovering economic losses, and ensuring substantive justice.
Acknowledgement The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to all parties who assisted in the preparation of this article, particularly to the leadership of the Faculty of Law at Syiah Kuala University, for the requisite permission granted for the publication of this article as one of the prerequisites for obtaining a doctoral degree.
Heartfelt thanks are also extended to the anonymous reviewers and editors who provided constructive feedback that significantly enhanced the quality of this article, rendering it both informative and a valuable reference.
Declarations Author contribution Funding statement Conflict of interest : Author 1: Initiated the research ideas, instrument construction, data collection, analysis, and draft writing.
Author 2: Revised the research ideas, literature review.
Author 3: Data presentation and analysis.
Author 4:
Analysis, and the final draft.
Author 5: Write revisions, analysis, and proofread.
: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit : The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Article History Submitted 7 January 2025 - Revision Required 12 July 2025 - Accepted 6 October 2025 Jurnal Hukum Novelty Volume 16.
Issue 22, 2025, pp.
P-ISSN: 1412-6834
E-ISSN: 2550-0090
Additional information : No additional information is available for this paper.
References