Hafrida., Retno Kusniati, and Yulia Monita. “Imprisonment as a Criminal
Sanction against Corporations in Forestry Crimes: How Is It Possible?”
Hasanuddin Law Review 8 no. 2 (2022): 160-170. DOI:
10.20956/halrev.v8i2.3187

HasanuddinLawReview
Volume 8 Issue 2, August 2022
P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Imprisonment as a Criminal Sanction against Corporations
in Forestry Crimes: How Is It Possible?
Hafrida1, Retno Kusniati2, Yulia Monita3
1 Faculty of Law, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia. E-mail: hafrida_hukum@unja.ac.id
2 Faculty of Law, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia. E-mail: retnokusniati@unja.ac.id
3 Faculty of Law, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia. E-mail: yuliamonita@unja.ac.id

Abstract: Environmental harms are frequently part and parcel of ordinary commercial practice. This study
aimed to highlight the importance of applying imprisonment as a corporate criminal sanction in forestry
crimes to observe and consider individual and far-reaching victims. Forest crimes impact the community’s
socio-cultural life and cause environmental damage by increasing global warming. Based on the laws and
regulations, fines as criminal sanctions do not effectively deter corporations. Subsequently, imprisonment
could be an alternative criminal sanction against corporations through identification where corporate
liability could be identified through its management. Actions taken by the management are not based on
their rights and authorities but those of the corporations. Therefore, imprisonment and other sanctions
such as restitution are expected to effectively and viably address forestry crimes.
Keywords: Corporation; Criminal Sanction; Forest; Forestry Crimes; Imprisonment

1. Introduction
Imprisonment is a criminal sanction that deprives freedom and restricts a person's
movement through confinement in a correctional institution. This implies that individuals
are sentenced to prison. Though often applied to natural legal persons, the question of
consideration is whether imprisonment could be used as a sanction when corporations
commit a crime.1 Another question is whether it could be restricted to natural persons
since corporations are legal subjects that significantly contribute to economic growth.
Corporations could perpetrate criminal acts that result in great losses for the state and
society. The growth of corruption, money laundering, smuggling, and forestry crimes are
replete with criminal acts committed by many corporations. Criminal liability is based on
the fulfillment of a criminal act as regulated in the law and the presence or absence of
errors. Mistakes or omissions also determine criminal liability, though this may not apply
to a corporation, even when it may be possible to measure the guilt of a natural person.
Corporations play a vital role in developing an increasingly complex social life. England
and other common law countries have recognized corporations as a legal subject that
could be punished. In contrast, Continental European countries lag in regulating

1

White, Rob. "Reparative justice, environmental crime and penalties for the powerful." Crime, Law
and Social Change 67, no. 2 (2017): 117-132.

160

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 8(2): 160-170

corporations as subjects of criminal law2. They fail to recognize the corporations’ ability
to commit criminal acts and the possibility to be punished3. Additionally, the imposition
of criminal liability on corporations is still limited. This indicates the punishment limited
to fines and imprisonment has not been applied, especially the separation of the
corporate from its management’s liability. Therefore, only a few corporations have been
convicted, where corporate criminal liability is considered the act of its management,
including in forestry crimes.
The Indonesian Law No. 18 /2013 on the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction
dated August 6, 2013, referred to as the “Law No. 18/2013” aims to maintain and protect
forest sustainability. The country is the home of the largest tropical forest worldwide 4.
Therefore, it is desirable and necessary for Indonesia to protect its forest resources. Law
No. 18/2013 stipulates that forest resources should be utilized in a planned, rational,
optimal, and responsible manner. The utilization should pay attention to sustainability
based on function and environmental balance to develop the forestry sector for people’s
welfare. Furthermore, the Law highlight types of forestry crimes, including those
committed by corporations, and their attendant sanction.5
The Law also recognizes the deleterious effects of forest destruction arising from their
unlawful use and conversion. These destructions frequently occur from illegal tree
logging and converting forest functions into plantations without a permit. 6 Forest
destruction impacts the community’s socio-cultural life and causes environmental
damage through increasing global warming.7 It is an organized crime with extraordinary
impact perpetrated across countries using sophisticated methods and modes to threaten
the life of the national and international community.8
Sustainable Forest destruction impacts global warming and causes extreme climate and
hemispheric weather changes. Forests are an important component in preventing
extreme weather changes. Deforestation accelerates extreme climate change which is
mitigated by large forest areas. Studies show that individuals destroy forests significantly
but are not the only perpetrators. Forest destruction could also be carried out by
corporations in an organized manner. Article 1 number 21 of the Law No. 18/2013 defines
the term everybody as an individual or a corporation committing forest destruction in an
organized manner within Indonesia with legal consequences. The Law also defines a
2

R v Birmingham & Glocester Railway Co. (1842) 3 QB 223
Ratomi, Achmad. "Korporasi Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana (Suatu Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana
Dalam Menghadapi Arus Globalisasi Dan Industri)." Al-Adl: Jurnal Hukum 10, no. 1 (2018): 1-22.
4
UNODC Regional Office for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Available online at:
https://www.unodc.org/roseap//en/indonesia/forest-crime.html
5
Tegnan, Hilaire, Lego Karjoko, Jaco Barkhuizen, and Anis H. Bajrektarevic. "Mining Corruption and
Environmental Degradation in Indonesia: Critical Legal Issues." BESTUUR 9, no. 2: 90-100.
https://doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v9i2.55219
6
Vickers, Ros. "The Regulation of Natural Resources Law in Australia for Indigenous People." Jambe
Law Journal 2, no. 2 (2019): 99-117.
7
Karim, Ridoan, Farahdilah Ghazali, and Abdul Haseeb Ansari. "Renewable Energy Regulations in
Indonesia and India: A Comparative Study on Legal Framework." JILS (Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies),
5 no. 2: 361-90. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v5i2.41986.
8
Rhett
A.
Butler.
“Consequences
of
Deforestation”.
Available
online:
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-consequences-of-deforestation.html Accessed April 1, 2019
3

161

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

corporation as organized people and legal or non-legal entities.9 Therefore, corporations
committing forestry crimes could be held criminally accountable, though it does not
mean they could be imprisoned.
The statutory provisions explained imply that corporations could be held liable for crimes
committed relating to forest destructions. Studies show that most corporations have
rarely been imprisoned for their criminal actions, necessitating a more severe
punishment with a deterrent effect. Consequently, this study aimed to examine the
effectiveness of imprisonment for corporations as a potential deterrent measure for
forest destruction in Indonesia.

2. Mens rea in Corporate Criminal Liability
Criminal liability in Indonesian criminal law is based on the principle of geen straf zonder
schuld, meaning no crime without fault. This implies that being criminally responsible for
someone's action should be based on "Schuld/Mens rea" besides the ability to be liable
and the absence of forgiving reasons. The Rome Statute is the legal basis for establishing
the International Criminal Court. Article 30 highlights the principle as follows:
Mental element – 1) Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible
and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only when the
material elements are committed with intent and knowledge. 2) For the purposes of
this article, a person has intent where: (a) In relation to conduct, that person means to
engage in the conduct; (b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause
that consequence or is aware that it would occur in the ordinary course of events. 3)
For the purposes of this article, "knowledge" denotes awareness that a circumstance
exists or a consequence would occur in the ordinary course of events. "Know" and
"knowingly" shall be construed accordingly" This article shows awareness of the
consequences of actions as a condition for criminal liability, while intent and knowledge
are a condition for punishment.10

A person is held accountable for a criminal act and could be sentenced when the mental
element is intentional. Also, a person is said to have intentionally committed a crime
when the act is intended and the perpetrator is aware of its consequences. The principle
of error in criminal liability could be qualified through the principle of strict or absolute
liability.11 The error element as a principle in criminal liability is relevant for analysis,
especially in applying imprisonment. When the crime perpetrator is an individual, it is
needless to discuss the wrongdoing because it is clear and settled. It becomes interesting
when discussing the wrongdoing of corporate liability.

9

Article 1 No. 22 Law No. 18/2013, The Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction (dated
August 6, 2013)
10 Badar, Mohamed Elewa. "The mental element in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court: A commentary from a comparative criminal law perspective." In Criminal Law Forum, vol. 19, no. 3,
pp. 473-518. Springer Netherlands, 2008.
11 Hafrida, Helmi, and Bunga Permatasari. "The Implementation of the Strict-Liability Principle to the
Perpetrators of Forest and Land Burning." Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) 7, no. 3 (2020):
314-333.

162

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 8(2): 160-170

Indonesia has a special regulation regarding examining corporations as crime
perpetrators. This is regulated by Considering the specificity in examining criminal cases
committed by corporations. In 2016, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia
stipulated Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016 concerning Procedures for
handling Criminal Cases by Corporations, referred to as SEMA No. 13 of 2016. Corporate
criminal liability could be applied to the management, but sanctions are only applicable
to fines, not imprisonment.
The management is a corporation’s organ that runs corporate activities in line with the
articles of association, laws, and regulations. It represents a corporation and includes
those unauthorized to make decisions but influence corporate policies, where such
actions could qualify as criminal acts. Article 3 SEMA Number 13 of 2016 defines
‘Corporate Crime’ as a crime committed based on an employment or another
relationship. The crime could be carried out individually or jointly, provided it is
perpetrated for and on behalf of the Corporation inside and outside the corporate scope.
Based on this article, the act is corporate but carried out by a person with a working
relationship with the corporation. The error in the guilt of a person committing a criminal
act individually or jointly on behalf of and for the benefit of the corporation is determined
in various ways. These include seeing whether the corporation benefits from this act,
whether it does not prevent a bigger impact, or ascertaining whether it has complied with
legal provisions.
These provisions imply the possibility for perpetrators of corporate crimes to apply
imprisonment through their management individually and collectively. Therefore, a new
legal instrument is needed to replace the old one where the main punishment for
corporations is only a fine. As stated in SEMA Number 13 of 2016 in Article 25 paragraph
(2), the main punishment to be imposed by a judge against a corporation is the principal
penalty or a fine.

3. Forestry Crimes in Regulation
This subsection discusses the laws and regulations related to forestry crimes. It helps to
know what is regulated in the laws and regulations regarding the forestry crimes
committed by corporations. One of the latest laws and regulations is Government
Regulation Number 23 of 2021 concerning Forestry Implementation. It describes forestry
as a system in implementing management related to forests, as well as their areas and
products. In this case, the management system is carried out in an integrated manner.
Furthermore, preventing and limiting forest damage caused by humans, livestock, fire,
natural resources, pests, and diseases is called Forest Protection. 12 It also encompasses
maintaining and safeguarding state, community, and individual rights to forests and their
areas, as well as investments and instruments in forest management (Article 1 point 72).
The government regulation was formed in line with the investment climate and the
community’s interests to encourage investment growth.
12

Affandi, Oding, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Bramasto Nugroho, and Sulistya Ekawati. "Institutional
analysis of forest governance after the implementation of Law Number 23/2014 in North Sumatra Province,
Indonesia." Forest and Society 5, no. 2 (2021): 304-325. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v5i2.8755

163

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

Several laws regulate criminal acts in the forestry sector through forest protection. Law
Number 41 of 1999 states that the implementation of forestry is intended to achieve
people's prosperity that favors justice and guarantees forest sustainability. 13 It aims to
ensure the existence of forests with a sufficient distribution area and increase protection,
conservation, and production of forest functions. Community participation is one cardinal
aspect in ensuring forestry protection and it is developed to create socio-economic
resilience. However, court decisions are often not in the community’s interests, as
Afriansyah14 stated that the judgment limits people’s access to environmental justice,
such as lack of legal background in law and technical expertise, high litigation costs, delay,
and lack of public information, participation, and trust. Nevertheless, the power
imbalance between the perpetrator and the victims might also affect the quality of the
court decision. In response to non-pro-environment judges, the government should
collaborate with the Supreme Court to strengthen judges' understanding of
environmental and forestry cases. Additionally, the leading ministry should conduct joint
training with the police and prosecutors regarding environmental understanding.
A critical examination of proscribed forestry crimes regarding corporate entities is
contained in Articles 102-103 of the Law number 18/2013 concerning Prevention and
Eradication of Forest Destruction. This indicates that the crimes committed by corporate
actors constitute a more criminal burden than those committed by individuals. Moreover,
forestry crimes committed by corporations attract severe sanctions, such as
imprisonment or fines. When the replacement money cannot be paid, the defendant is
subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding the maximum threat of the principal
sentence for which the substitute imprisonment has been determined in a court decision.
Claims against the corporation as perpetrators of illegal logging, harvesting, collecting,
controlling, transporting, and distributing timber would result in criminal prosecution or
imposition of charges against the corporation or its management. When a crime is
committed individually or jointly based on a work or other relationship and within the
corporate environment, it is considered an act of the corporation.
The formulation of these Articles is a penal policy effort through the stages formulated
with the hope that this Law could become effective in overcoming forestry crimes
committed by corporations. At the formulation stage, criminal law policy is a strategic
policy whose system lines are the legal basis for implementing the crime by the judiciary
and the criminal implementing apparatus.15 The legislation empowers the implementers
of the Act or law enforcement officers in their application. Therefore, a statutory
regulation that formulates penal means needs rational planning. This ensures that the
statutory facilities are used as an effective tool in preventing forestry crimes.

13

Muchtar, Syamsuddin, and Ahsan Yunus. "Environmental law enforcement in forestry crime: A
disjunction between ideality and reality." In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol.
343, no. 1, p. 012066. IOP Publishing, 2019.
14 Afriansyah, Arie, Anbar Jayadi, and Angela Vania. "Fighting the Giants: Efforts in Holding Corporation
Responsible for Environmental Damages in Indonesia." Hasanuddin Law Review 4, no. 3 (2019): 325-338.
http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v4i3.1626
15 Elvany, Ayu Izza. "Kebijakan Formulatif Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Destructive Fishing di
Indonesia." Justitia Jurnal Hukum 3, no. 2 (2019).

164

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 8(2): 160-170

The effectiveness of the formulated laws and regulations depends on their
implementation. Through this formulation stage, the criminal policy should be used
carefully, selectively, and with limits, implying it should be applied with seriousness and
care. The following sub-chapter examines implementing criminal sanctions in prison as
formulated in laws and regulations against perpetrators of forestry crimes committed by
corporations. In this case, corporate criminal liability needs an in-depth study on the
principle of "fault." One of the latest laws and regulations is Government Regulation
Number 23 of 2021 concerning forestry implementation.
Have to recognise that the law enforcement on forest fires in Jambi has not provided a
deterrent effect. There are forty-six companies acquiring fires in their concession land
areas. Unfortunately, only four companies reached court proceedings, two were declared
guilty, and forty people were declared suspects. Criminal law enforcement in land fire
cases mainly covers the liability applicable to perpetrators of forest and land fires. The
law is enforced through court and other alternatives, such as land sealing by seven
companies associated with forest fires.16 This study found that law enforcement against
corporations causing forest fires lacks a deterrent effect.

4. Implementation of Imprisonment on Corporations in Forestry Crimes
Criminal liability against corporations as perpetrators of forestry crimes is not a new issue.
Policies have formulated laws and regulations that place corporations as subjects in
criminal acts, such as Legislation Number 13 of 2018 concerning Prevention and
Eradication of Forest Destruction. Article 82-103 formulates imprisonment sanctions
against corporations as perpetrators of forestry crimes with a minimum penalty of five
years and a maximum of fifteen years. It also threats a minimum fine of five hundred
million rupiahs and a maximum of fifteen billion rupiahs.
The imprisonment and fines also apply to perpetrators of tree felling in forest areas
without a permit (Article 82) and bringing heavy equipment used to cut trees in the forest
(Article 84), ordering to do, organizing, or encouraging illegal logging (Article 94). Other
crimes are falsifying permits for utilizing timber forest products or using forest areas and
transferring or selling permits issued by authorized officials except with the approval of
the Minister (Article 96). The imprisonment and fines also apply to damaging forest
protection facilities and infrastructure (Article 97(a)), falsifying permits for utilizing timber
forest products or using forest areas referred to in Article 24 (a) and (b), or selling permits
issued by authorized officials except with the approval of the Minister (Article 97 (b)).
Individuals and corporations are given additional penalties involving paying replacement
money. When they cannot pay the replacement money, individuals and corporations are
subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding the length of the main criminal
penalty.

16 Hafrida, Helmi, and Bunga Permatasari. "The Implementation of the Strict-Liability Principle to the

Perpetrators of Forest and Land Burning." Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) 7, no. 3 (2020):
314-333.

165

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

Prosecution against forestry crimes is applied to corporations or their management. This
involves considering the corporation’s position in criminal law as a company, the
corporate management, as well as the manager, and the corporation responsible. At the
formulation stage, criminal law policy through legislation is a strategic step in overcoming
a crime. This is the case with criminal law policy formulation in forestry crime through
Law number 18 of 2013. The law determines the direction and guidelines for criminal law
policies at the application and execution stages. At the formulation stage, criminal law
policy is a rational effort in crime prevention. The policy at the application and execution
stages depends on the formulation. Policy weaknesses at the formulation stage cause
strategic and decisive errors in overall crime prevention, including in the forestry sector.
Criminal law policies at the formulation stage through penalization of corporations are
strategic in implementation and execution. Success at the application stage is inseparable
from the corporation’s theoretical view. Furthermore, criminal liability against
corporations in applying imprisonment should be based on "mistakes" as a determinant.
The corporation does not need to always act physically in the socio-economic
environment. The act could be performed by the employee, provided it is within the
scope of the corporation’s functions and authorities.17 Moreover, the corporation could
be a functional actor in criminal liability through the management. It is because the
criminal act could be individual or joint, meaning that the criminal act is within the scope
of the corporation’s function and authority. This is in line with Article 109, Law no. 18 of
2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction.
Logging, harvesting, collecting, controlling, transporting, and distributing timber
from illegal logging is performed by a corporation when the crime is committed by
an individual based on a work or other relationship and within the corporate
environment individually or jointly.

Referring to Article 109 paragraph (2), forestry crimes could be committed by individuals
provided they are committed individually or jointly based on a working relationship and
within a corporate environment. Statutory provisions number 18 of 2013 concerning
Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction place corporations as crime
perpetrators and apply imprisonment, fines, and additional penalties for refunding
replacement money. They could also be subject to additional penalties in the form of
closing all or part of the company. The penal approach to corporations as crime
perpetrators and subject to imprisonment is important in forestry crime prevention
policies. However, the objectives of the criminal law policy to combat crime may not be
realized when not implemented properly, no matter how good the legal policy is at the
formulation stage.
In terms of applying criminal acts against corporations in 2016, the Supreme Court issued
Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016 concerning Procedures for Handling
Criminal Acts committed by Corporations. This regulation states that a corporation is an
entity or legal subject that significantly contributes to increasing economic growth and
national development. Corporations sometimes commit criminal or corporate crimes
17

Reksodiputro, Mardjono. Kemajuan Pembangunan Ekonomi dan Kejahatan. Pusat Pelayanan
Keadilan dan Pengabdian Hukum (Lembaga Kriminolgi), Universitas Indonesia, 1994.

166

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 8(2): 160-170

that impact the state and society. They could be a place to hide assets resulting from
criminal acts not touched by the legal process in criminal liability. 18 In Article 25 (2), the
principal penalty that could be imposed on a corporation as referred to in paragraph (1)
is a fine. In the Supreme Court Regulation and Article 108 paragraph (5), the main criminal
sanctions applied to corporations are fines. However, Law Number 18 of 2013 formulates
policies that corporations committing forestry crimes are punishable by cumulative
imprisonment, fines, payment of compensation, and partial or complete closure of the
company.
Theoretical analysis of imprisonment to corporations is still possible. This could involve
the theories of identification and the functionalization of corporations that meet the
requirements to be determined as criminals and applicable to imprisonment. The
identification theory sees corporations as the identification theory should show that the
acts of the people or the corporation’s directing minds are included in the activities
assigned to them. The theory should also show that the crime is not a fraud against the
corporation, and it is intended to benefit the corporation.19
Regulation number 13 of 2016 contradicts the direction and objectives of criminal law
policies through the penalization and application of imprisonment for corporations.
Similarly, regulation number 13 of 2016 contradicts the larger interest in forestry crimes
and favors environmental sustainability. Determination of guilt is fundamental in criminal
liability (geen straf zonder schuld), which is solely based on the perpetrator's fault. Against
individual criminals, the determination of this error could be "opzet/intentional" or
"culpa/omission" assessed through the crime perpetrator’s evil inner attitude. For
corporations, it could be seen through the criteria stated in regulation number 13 of
2016.
Forestry crimes have a negative impact, where the victims are individuals as in
conventional blue-collar crime and the wider community. The negative impact includes
the disruption of the community’s material welfare and depriving future generations of
rights. Therefore, applying imprisonment sanctions against corporations would prevent
and deter criminals. Implementing imprisonment through direct corporate criminal
liability considers that corporations could commit several offenses directly through
closely related agents. The actions of agents are seen as "directing minds." The mens rea
of these individual agents is the mens rea of the corporation.
The liability of imprisonment for corporations is in line with the general principle of
criminal liability "geen straf zonder schuld," meaning no crime without fault.
Imprisonment could be applied against corporations based on their "fault." Based on the
determination of corporate error as per the Regulation of the Minister of Finance number
13 of 2016, the corporation could benefit from the crime. Moreover, the corporation
could ignore and fail to prevent the crime. The management could be held criminally
responsible and imprisonment imposed when the fault is broken.
18 Helmi, Fauzi Syam, Nopyandri, and Akbar Kurnia Putra. "Evaluation of the Regulation Changes on

Environment and Forestry in Indonesia." Hasanuddin Law Review 6, no. 1 (2020): 100-108.
http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v6i1.2290
19 Cressey, Donald R. "The poverty of theory in corporate crime research." In Advances in criminological
theory, pp. 31-56. Routledge, 2017.

167

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

Imprisonment is a sanction imposed on the body. The urgency to apply imprisonment to
corporations through their management carrying out their actions individually or
collectively is more effective in overcoming forestry crimes than only fines. This is seen in
the following aspects: Firstly, victim. Victims of forestry crimes committed by
corporations are individuals like other conventional crimes. However, they have a broad
dimension, including the destruction of flora and fauna, as well as environmental
damage, with a negative impact on the future sustainability of human well-being;
Secondly, offenders. Corporations that commit forestry crimes have an economic
dimension in their actions. They make maximum profits without considering extensive
damage and losses to the wider community. Corporations commit crimes based on greed
to make big profits for the company.
Criminal law through the application of imprisonment for corporations committing forest
crimes protects multi-dimensional interests.20 Applying criminal fines has no deterrent
effect because the profits obtained exceed the fines imposed. Therefore, imprisonment
sanctions should be implemented against corporations by integrating the formulation
and application policies. This is because forest destruction is a crime with an
extraordinary impact. It is organized and transnationally perpetrated with a sophisticated
modus operandi, threatening the community's survival. Therefore, a strong legal basis is
needed in preventing and eradicating forest destruction and providing a deterrent effect
to guarantee effective law enforcement. Legal science is "The power of solving problems"
and has the ability to solve concrete legal problems.
Criminal law policies at the future formulation stage regarding corporate liability are
regulated in a separate paragraph in the Revision of the Criminal Code in Indonesia,
RKUHP. In Article 46 of the RKUHP, a corporate crime could be committed by a
management with a functional position in the corporate organizational structure. It could
also be perpetrated by a person based on work or other relationships acting for and on
behalf of the corporation individually or collectively. In Article 47 of the RKUHP, corporate
criminal acts could also be committed by the giver of orders, controllers, or the
corporation’s beneficial owners outside the organizational structure but with control
over the company. This means that corporate crime perpetrators include the
management within and outside the structure. In this case, the person concerned has
control to govern and benefit from the corporation. Jerome Frank in Philippe Nonet and
Philippe Selznick found that the main goal of legal realism is to make the law more
responsive to social needs. Therefore, the concrete conditions of social problems
resulting from forestry crimes require a responsive legal formulation.
This formulation stage indicates policies to be criminally responsible, including applying
imprisonment to corporations through the management using the principle of direct
criminal liability. In law enforcement against corporations as perpetrators of forestry
crimes, the principle of ultimum remidium is not appropriate. It would be effective in
overcoming forest crimes by placing criminal law at a premium remidium with
administrative law enforcement. Therefore, the application of criminal law as a premium
remedium could achieve substantive justice and recognize public desires.
20

Sollund, Ragnhild. Eco-global crimes: Contemporary problems and future challenges. Routledge,

2016.

168

Hasanuddin Law Rev. 8(2): 160-170

5. Conclusion
Imprisonment for corporations as perpetrators of criminal acts in the forestry sector has
not been implemented. The application of criminal law is a policy at the applicative and
law enforcement levels. Applicative policies would be implemented when criminal law
policies have been formulated properly. There are contradictions over the articles
contained in the law regarding formulating policies through the prevention and
eradication of forest destruction law. The inconsistency in these laws and regulations has
resulted in imprisonment that cannot be implemented for corporations as perpetrators
of forestry crimes. In contrast, corporate criminal liability through imprisonment could be
implemented with the principle of direct criminal liability through corporate
management. Criminal law policies are formulated by placing law enforcement as a
premium remidium applied integrally to administrative law enforcement. Therefore, it is
necessary to evaluate the regulation regarding fines as the main criminal sanctions
applied to corporations.

References
Affandi, Oding, Hariadi Kartodihardjo, Bramasto Nugroho, and Sulistya Ekawati.
"Institutional analysis of forest governance after the implementation of Law
Number 23/2014 in North Sumatra Province, Indonesia." Forest and Society 5, no.
2 (2021): 304-325. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v5i2.8755
Afriansyah, Arie, Anbar Jayadi, and Angela Vania. "Fighting the Giants: Efforts in Holding
Corporation Responsible for Environmental Damages in Indonesia." Hasanuddin
Law Review 4, no. 3 (2019): 325-338. http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v4i3.1626
Badar, Mohamed Elewa. "The mental element in the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court: A commentary from a comparative criminal law perspective." In
Criminal Law Forum, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 473-518. Springer Netherlands, 2008.
Cressey, Donald R. "The poverty of theory in corporate crime research." In Advances in
criminological theory, pp. 31-56. Routledge, 2017.
Elvany, Ayu Izza. "Kebijakan Formulatif Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Destructive
Fishing di Indonesia." Justitia Jurnal Hukum 3, no. 2 (2019).
Hafrida, Helmi, and Bunga Permatasari. "The Implementation of the Strict-Liability
Principle to the Perpetrators of Forest and Land Burning." Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu
Hukum (Journal of Law) 7, no. 3 (2020): 314-333.
Helmi, Fauzi Syam, Nopyandri, and Akbar Kurnia Putra. "Evaluation of the Regulation
Changes on Environment and Forestry in Indonesia." Hasanuddin Law Review 6, no.
1 (2020): 100-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v6i1.2290
Karim, Ridoan, Farahdilah Ghazali, and Abdul Haseeb Ansari. "Renewable Energy
Regulations in Indonesia and India: A Comparative Study on Legal Framework." JILS
(Journal
of
Indonesian
Legal
Studies),
5
no.
2:
361-90.
https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v5i2.41986.
Muchtar, Syamsuddin, and Ahsan Yunus. "Environmental law enforcement in forestry
crime: A disjunction between ideality and reality." In IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science, vol. 343, no. 1, p. 012066. IOP Publishing, 2019.

169

P-ISSN: 2442-9880, E-ISSN: 2442-9899

Ratomi, Achmad. "Korporasi Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana (Suatu Pembaharuan Hukum
Pidana Dalam Menghadapi Arus Globalisasi Dan Industri)." Al-Adl: Jurnal Hukum 10,
no. 1 (2018): 1-22.
Reksodiputro, Mardjono. Kemajuan Pembangunan Ekonomi dan Kejahatan. Pusat
Pelayanan Keadilan dan Pengabdian Hukum (Lembaga Kriminolgi), Universitas
Indonesia, 1994.
Rhett A. Butler. “Consequences of Deforestation”. Available online:
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-consequences-of-deforestation.html
Accessed April 1, 2019
Sollund, Ragnhild. Eco-global crimes: Contemporary problems and future challenges.
Routledge, 2016.
Tegnan, Hilaire, Lego Karjoko, Jaco Barkhuizen, and Anis H. Bajrektarevic. "Mining
Corruption and Environmental Degradation in Indonesia: Critical Legal Issues."
BESTUUR 9, no. 2: 90-100. https://doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v9i2.55219
UNODC Regional Office for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Available online at:
https://www.unodc.org/roseap//en/indonesia/forest-crime.html
Vickers, Ros. "The Regulation of Natural Resources Law in Australia for Indigenous
People." Jambe Law Journal 2, no. 2 (2019): 99-117.
White, Rob. "Reparative justice, environmental crime and penalties for the powerful."
Crime, Law and Social Change 67, no. 2 (2017): 117-132.

170