On December 17, 2025, the President of Indonesia signed the criminal procedure bill into Law No. 20 of 2025 (the “New KUHAP”), following its parliamentary approval in November 2025. The New KUHAP replaces Indonesia’s four-decades-old Law No. 8 of 1981 (the “Old KUHAP”) and took effect on January 2, 2026.
While public discourse continues to debate whether the changes go far enough, we believe the enactment of the New KUHAP introduces significant reforms to Indonesian criminal procedure and is expected to improve criminal law enforcement in Indonesia.
New Remedies to Mitigate Criminal Liability
When a business becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, it may find itself in a particularly vulnerable position, especially in cases where regulatory non-compliance is evident. Taking immediate steps to rectify the non-compliance does not necessarily prevent the investigation from escalating into a full-blown prosecution and trial, which could expose the business to greater risk of criminal liability.
The New KUHAP introduces mechanisms that may be pursued to help mitigate these criminal liability risks, including deferred prosecution agreements (“DPAs”) and plea bargains (pengakuan bersalah).
Deferred Prosecution Agreements
DPAs apply exclusively to the prosecution of corporate crimes. A corporation that is a suspect or a defendant – either directly or through its attorneys – may submit a formal request for a DPA to the prosecutor before the case file is submitted to the court for the commencement of trial. The decision to enter into DPA negotiations lies entirely within the prosecutor’s discretion. Any DPA ultimately agreed between the corporation and the prosecution must then be reviewed and ratified by the court. If the court refuses to ratify the DPA, the criminal process will resume.
Under the New KUHAP, the conditions included in a DPA may require the corporation to provide compensation or restitution to victims, implement compliance programs or improvements to corporate governance oriented toward anti-corruption compliance, cooperate with and report to the prosecutor over a specified deferral period, and undertake other corrective actions deemed necessary by the prosecution.
The corporation must fulfill all DPA obligations within the designated deferral period. If it does so, the corporation may be exempted from further prosecution. However, if the corporation fails to satisfy its obligations within that period, or violates any DPA condition, the prosecutor may resume prosecution. Conversely, the corporation may file a formal objection in the event of any violation of DPA-related procedures.
The introduction of DPAs in the New KUHAP represents a significant development in the prosecution of corporate crimes. Nevertheless, its practical implementation remains to be seen.
Plea Bargains
The plea bargain process under the New KUHAP allows a suspect or defendant, who must be accompanied by an attorney, to plead guilty and cooperate in the criminal proceedings in exchange for reduced charges. Investigators and prosecutors are now authorized to accept plea bargains (pengakuan bersalah) from suspects or defendants, which must be submitted to the court in a special hearing. The prosecutor and defendant may then enter into a plea deal, subject to the court’s approval.
A plea deal must include (i) an acknowledgment of consequences arising from the plea deal, including a waiver of the right to remain silent; (ii) a voluntary admission of guilt; (iii) the criminal provisions under which the defendant will be charged; (iv) the results of the negotiations with the prosecutor, including the specific reasons supporting the reduction of charges; (v) an acknowledgment that the plea deal is legally binding; and (vi) references to the evidence demonstrating the defendant’s commission of the crime.
However, plea bargaining is available only under certain conditions. It may be used solely when (i) the defendant is a first-time offender; (ii) the offense carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to Category V (i.e., up to IDR 500 million); and (iii) the defendant is willing to pay damages or restitution.
Blocking Measures
While separate laws and regulations have governed law enforcement’s authority to block different kinds of assets, such as land certificates and bank accounts, the New KUHAP now provides a unified statutory framework for such measures.
The New KUHAP defines “blocking” as an action to temporarily restrict access to, or the ability to use or transfer, assets, evidence of ownership, banking transactions, online accounts, electronic information, electronic documents, or other administrative products, based on an order by an investigator, prosecutor, or judge. A blocking measure is effective for one year and may be extended twice, each for a maximum of six months.
A blocking measure requires approval from the chief of the District Court, except in urgent circumstances. These are limited to situations where there is a risk that the asset will be moved, the crime involves electronic information or transactions, the crime is organized, and/or other conditions based on the investigator’s assessment. Blocking measures imposed without prior approval must obtain such approval within 48 hours of implementation.
Seizure with Due Regard to the Rights of ‘Good Faith Third Parties’
The New KUHAP introduces a requirement that any seizure or confiscation of property be carried out with due regard to the rights of “good faith third parties.” This provision appears intended to address situations where assets belonging to unrelated third parties are seized in the course of a criminal investigation, in which case such parties may commence a pretrial (praperadilan) to challenge the seizure.
Lawyer Roles Expanded
The New KUHAP explicitly grants witnesses and victims the right to be accompanied by an attorney at all stages of the criminal process. This marks a significant development from the Old KUHAP, which only expressly recognized legal assistance for suspects and defendants.
Although it has long been common practice for witnesses to seek legal accompaniment during investigations, certain law enforcement agencies have historically restricted attorneys from attending witness examinations. It remains uncertain whether these restrictive practices will persist or adapt to comply with the New KUHAP provisions, which now codify this right.
Under the New KUHAP, attorneys accompanying suspects during investigations now have the explicit right to raise objections if the investigator engages in intimidation or poses incriminating questions. These objections must be formally recorded in the official examination report (berita acara). This provision is aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the investigative process, ensuring that any improper conduct is documented and subject to review.
Conclusion
The New KUHAP introduces key reforms to Indonesian criminal law enforcement that will affect how businesses navigate investigations and enforcement actions. Among these reforms, mechanisms such as DPAs provide corporations with procedural avenues to mitigate criminal liability risks, while the expanded role of attorneys should offer greater assurance to companies required to produce witnesses for investigations. However, it remains to be seen how these reforms will be implemented in practice and how law enforcement institutions will adapt to them. (9 January 2026)
