Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS ISSN(print): 2643-9840, ISSN(online): 2643-9875 Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 DOI: 10.47191/ijmra/v8-i11-65, Impact Factor: 8.266 Page No. 6457-6482 IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6457 Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation Feri Satria Wicaksana Effendy 1, Yoghi Arief Susanto2 1,2 Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro, Jl. dr. Antonius Suroyo, Tembalang, Semarang, Indonesia ABSTRACT: Corporate criminal liability regulation in Indonesia has experienced an extensive evolution with the adoption of the 2023 Criminal Code (KUHP) that is the first law to acknowledge corporations as the subject of criminal law. However, other sectoral laws, such as the Environmental Protection Act, the Anti -Corruption Act, and the Anti -Money launder act still use the divergent principles of defining the principles of liability, the mechanism of evidence, and the form of sanctions. These inconsistencies cause regulatory discord leading to legal ambiguity, uneven application and institutional overlap. The paper will aim to determine normative friction existing between the 2023 KUHP and sectoral legislation and come up with a correct harmonisation model. Using a normative juridical paradigm that incorporates statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, this study establishes that there are four main areas of conflict, which are the principles of liability (strict liability versus fault liability), the attribution models (vicarious liability versus identification theory), the evidentiary standards (reverse burden versus conventional proof), and the typology of sanctions. In a bid to eliminate these discrepancies, the paper develops four harmonisation measures such as structural harmonisation between statutes; systematic interpretation; creation of joint prosecution principles; and harmonisation of sectoral statutes with the KUHP using an integrative model of corporate criminal liability. The conclusions highlight the importance of full harmonisation to create a corporate criminal liability regime that is viable, consistent, and in line with the current penal policy goals. KEYWORDS: Corporate Criminal Liability; Kuhp 2023; Sectoral Legislation; Legal Harmonization; Indonesia. I. INTRODUCTION The history of corporate criminal liability in Indonesia cannot be discussed outside the framework of the contemporary crime that is manifested by increasing complexity. In the past, the Indonesian criminal law placed human beings as the sole victims of criminal offences, with corporations as the ones that were not liable to criminal offences. The classical perception has slowly changed as different types of crimes that are perpetrated by corporate organisational structures have surfaced. Crimes in the environmental protection, financial, corruption, and trade spheres prove that corporate behavior may cause social, financial, and ecological damages much greater than those of the individual ones. This state has compelled lawmakers to devise laws that will allow the corporations to be criminally accountable as a reaction to the more structured structure of misconduct. In line with this transformations, there is also the development of doctrines that shows a pronounced shift in the attitude towards corporations as criminal entities. The shift to the principle of non-viability in punishing the delinquent to the fact that corporations may be subjected to criminal punishment has been reinforced, according to Nurdin and Asmoro (B. Nurdin & Asmoro, 2024). Xin and Heith (Xin & Heith, 2022) demonstrate that in various jurisdictions, such as Bolivia, more detailed legislation is developed to criminalize corporate responsibility. Simultaneously, the concept of corporate social responsibility is gaining an even greater significance because infraction of the CSR principles can lead to severe legal repercussions (Kanuri et al., 2020). Generally, corporate criminal liability developments all over the world are fuelled by enforcement requirements and regulatory rejuvenation so that it can be on par with the emerging social and economic trends. As Suartha and Ivory (Suartha & Ivory, 2024) note, a number of countries have been engaged in legislative reforms to make sure that the legal tools are not obsolete to the activities of current corporations. The inclusion of the sustainability concept in the corporate reporting highlighted by Siregar et al. (Siregar et al., 2024) and Shamil et al. (Shamil et al., 2022) is the manifestation of the increasing demand to have transparency and accountability of corporations in the populace. Therefore, the development of corporate criminal liability can be viewed as a legal response to the modern trends in business and constitutes a significant normative foundation of the enhancement of the Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6458 criminal justice system in Indonesia. Legal thought as well as national regulatory reform is not only formed by these developments but also one of the tangible manifestations of this is the adoption of the 2023 Criminal Code (KUHP 2023). The result of such a regulatory renewal is the adoption of KUHP 2023, which is an advancement in the regulation of corporate criminal responsibility in Indonesia. General criminal law is the first to formally acknowledge corporations as separate objects of a criminal law. Not only does KUHP 2023 define corporations but it also controls the nature of culpability, correlation between actions of managers and the corporate entity, and penalties and other forms of punishments which could be applied to companies. This rule widens the area of criminal responsibility which had been concentrated on individuals thus extending it to bodies having organisational set up and capacity of operation. In this regard, KUHP 2023 offers greater theoretical and normative foundations of prosecuting corporations that commit criminal offences. This change portends a great break with the classical principle “universitas delinquere non potest” that previously predominated in the Indonesian criminal law. Nurdin and Asmoro (B. Nurdin & Asmoro, 2024) underline that the idea of considering corporations as entities that can be punished is a more realist view of the interactions of contemporary crime. KUHP 2023 is structured in such a manner that companies will no longer be exempt to criminal charges and may be imposed corresponding penalties relative to the damages suffered as described by Suparman and Retnaningrum (Suparman & Retnaningrum, 2023). The regulation, therefore, enhances the legal status of corporations as a legal entity that is fully liable to the law. In addition, KUHP 2023 brings a new orientation of the Indonesian criminal justice system reform. According to Andriani, the purpose of the regulation is to enhance law enforcement and human rights protection (Andriani, 2024). Panjaitan et al. (Panjaitan et al., 2024) stress that this change is a calculated move towards combating the intricacies of the crimes perpetrated by corporate means. Consequently, KUHP 2023 is not only conceptually changing but also offering new directions in order to improve accountability and fairness in law enforcement against corporations. However, the overall system proposed by KUHP 2023 should be combined with the multiplicity of sectoral laws, which used to govern the corporate criminal liability, and reflect different orientations and models that are not always consistent. The plurality of sectoral laws in the Indonesian legal system suggests that every sphere of wrongdoing has unique features, thus, requiring the use of different methods of penalties that do not follow the framework of the criminal code. An example of this is the Environmental Protection Act, which employs a strict-liability regime, which makes prosecution easy without establishing the mens rea due to the direct ecological consequences of the crime. On the other hand, the Anti-Corruption Act also focuses on punishing company institutions that gain advantages of the corrupt practices whereas the Anti-Money Laundering Act applies reverse-burden measures to identify the source of illegal financial resources. These conflicting norms represent each statute trying to address the specific dynamics and facts of infractions in its respective industry, but at the same time, introduce a significant conceptual divergence in definitions of culpability, the terms of evidence, and modalities of corporate liability. In a sense, the differences existing between the Anti-Corruption Act, Environmental Protection Act, and the Anti-Money laundering act are a source of serious enforcement problems. Empirical research by Suartha and Ivory (Suartha & Ivory, 2024) and Inayah (Inayah, 2020) confirms the practical confusion of the lack of regulatory synchronisation because each sectoral law is pursued with specific goals, principles, and penal frameworks that are not always consistent with the systematic provisions of the KUHP 2023. As a result, the criminal law regime in Indonesia is still struggling with the challenges of harmonisation of the normative standards of the corporate criminal liability. Under application, the Anti-Corruption act will provide restitutionary measures that seek to recover state losses, but enforcement is often hindered by the complexity of corporate structures and the difficulty of sharing the responsibility among individuals (Foster, 2023). At the same time, the Environmental Protection Act emphasizes corporate responsibility to protect the environment, but the rules can overlap with other law systems in case of violations of the law in more than one sphere (Firdaus et al., 2020). The results of other scholarly works by Astuti et al. (Astuti et al., 2024) and M and Hardianto (M & Hardianto, 2024) also claim that unclear definitions of responsibility in the sectoral law reduce the effectiveness of enforcement. Regulatory harmonisation, therefore, becomes a major move towards a legal certainty and efficient adjudication of corporate crime in Indonesia. Therefore, sectoral diversity does not only generate regulatory diversity, but also normative conflicts that are of greater interest to explore. Such regulatory differences create contradiction among various areas of critical dimensions of corporate criminal liability. At the principle level, KUHP 2023 subscribes to a doctrine of fault, and Environmental Protection Act uses strict liability, without the need to have a mens rea factor. The result of the dispute in conceptual terms is divergent definition of corporate culpability, the definition of the nexus between the managerial conduct and the corporate entity as well as parameters of corporate benefit based Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6459 on criminal acts. Evidentiary tension occurs by placing a reverse-burden of proof on the anti-money laundering act and overturning the fault elements in environmental crimes. Moreover, the sanctionary discrepancies are represented through the wider range of administrative, criminal, and ancillary penalties accessible to the statutory provisions of an industry compared to the narrower range of lex generalis in the case of KUHP. These tensions are becoming more acute considering the fact that sectoral laws regularly promote discord in the interpretation of values, notions, evidential systems, and punishment. The need to correct such misalignments is enhanced by corporate crimes with profound impact on societal interests, especially those that are committed against the environment and economic transgressions (Torodji et al., 2023). In many instances, penalties in some of the sectoral legislations do not lead to sufficient deterrence, and in fact, can lead to recurrence of a transgression (Asnar, 2024). In turn, this disintegration creates legal ambiguity among the stakeholders (Astuti et al., 2024). Additionally, there is the sub-optimal adoption of the punitive purposes of criminal penalties, which are prevention, protection of the population, administration of justice, and rehabilitation, which are not well integrated into the existing legal structures. With the growing sophistication of corporate harm, the introduction of liability in legal persons has become a necessity to increase the efficiency of the Indonesian criminal law (Fajarudin, 2021). Strong enforcement also requires a solid interagency coordination and subtle understanding of corporate operational dynamics. Yan (Yan, 2023) and Anggraeni & Amrullah (Anggraeni & Amrullah, 2023) argue that an environment of compliance can be only thriving when regulatory bodies and the enforcement institutions are cohesive and aligned. Therefore, the recognition of normative contradictions in sectoral legislation and the understanding thereof in conjunction with the strategic move of creating a more sustainable and fair legal synergy. Not only do these conflicts pose conceptual challenges, but they also have a material effect on the outcomes of enforcement as is shown by numerous cases of regulatory disharmony. Normative conflicts that have not been resolved end in a state of regulatory disharmony, which disables law enforcement on a field level. The disagreement between the KUHP 2023 and other sectoral statutes are an outright result of a clash in principles, notions, evidentiary regulations, and regimes of sanctions that have been earlier articulated. Such discord has real impacts on the functional efficiency of corporate criminal enforcement in Indonesia. Police officers are continuously faced with the dilemmas of deciding on the right statutory grounds in charging corporate conduct that may be subject to a variety of provisions. The situation is increased by divergent evidentiary standards among regulations that introduce inconsistency in the process of investigation, prosecution and adjudicating the case. These circumstances create a wide interpretive leeway, create business-level legal uncertainty, and eventually undermine the ability of the state to effectively prosecute corporate crime. The effect of disharmony is more eminent in the adjudication of the corruption cases associating corporate entities. Nashruddien et al. (Nashruddien et al., 2024) conclude that discrepancy between corporate criminal standards and the sectoral regulations is a significant hindrance in the war on corruption. Kurniawan (F. M. Kurniawan, 2023) states that the lack of clear guidelines on corporate responsibility in corruption laws increases the chances of impunity, particularly when the corporate systems are being used to cover the identity of the individual offenders. This shows that not only does disharmony create normative issues, it also limits the scope of the law as far as corporate crime is concerned. In addition, recovery mechanisms of losses and restitution of assets are not transparent hence making it difficult to enforce. As noticed by Handayani et al. (Handayani et al., 2024), the differences between the objectives and the process in the 2023 Criminal Code and the sectoral laws are often barriers to the asset-recovery process, specifically when dealing with complicated financial schemes. Utami and Barokah (Utami & Barokah, 2024) contribute that the capacity of corporate sentencing is also weakened by the lack of good collaboration between the public and the private in enforcing the compliance principles. Regulatory disharmony, therefore, minimizes compliance incentives to corporations and impedes establishment of a strong compliance culture. In this respect, it is evident that criminal code harmonisation with sectoral laws should be a priority as it is crucial to enhance the role of corporate criminal enforcement in Indonesia, as well as to boost accountability. This scenario therefore demands a holistic research in order to trace the origin of disharmony and to develop a harmonisation plan of action. With the intricacy and the effect of this incongruence, a normative contestation investigation among the 2023 Criminal Code and sectoral regulations becomes particularly pressing. The conflict points, their impact and mechanisms to be used to develop a harmonisation model must be pointed out through an in-depth analysis that can ensure uniform law enforcement. It is also necessary to make clear the relationship between lex generalis and lex specialis so that enforcement officers can have a good idea of which norms will best fit in the corporate offence scenario. The present research, therefore, has academic and practical significance because it will help in the development of strategies of controlling corporate crime which are more effective, systematic and justice oriented. Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6460 This sense of urgency is further heightened by the fact that the liability of corporations is placed at the national level such that it is informed by the social and environmental needs. The regulatory dynamics are changing with the increased attention to the sustainability issues, as did the sectoral statutes and the 2023 Criminal Code. The role of private sector involvement in the process of supporting the Sustainable Development Goals cannot be underrated because the SDG framework offers a platform on which corporate integrity and responsibility are encouraged (Awuah et al., 2023). However, corporate criminal liability can be highly challenging to enforce, especially when it comes to demonstrating the guilt to hide individuals by using corporate structures (Suparman & Retnaningrum, 2023). Meanwhile, the implementation of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) principles is becoming recognised as a tool of improving the transparency and accountability of a corporation. As Gustafsson et al. (Gustafsson et al., 2022) and Martin-Ortega et al. (Martin‐Ortega et al., 2022) show, it is possible to make human rights more effective to protect the environment and maintain it in high standards of corporate behavior. Considering these trends, the amendment of the norms in the 2023 Criminal Code and sectoral laws is a significant measure that helps to prevent loopholes in the legislation and promote the increased corporate accountability to the society and the environment. Co-ordination of regulations is thus an essential measure towards facilitating the Indonesian law system to react to the complexity of corporate crime more efficiently and fairly. Through the above, it is clear that regulatory framework differences between 2023 Criminal Code and other sectoral laws do not only result in normative conflicts but also hinders effectiveness in law enforcement. It is a situation that requires a more targeted and in-depth investigation. The idea to conduct this research stems from the necessity to comprehend how the 2023 Criminal Code regulates corporate criminal liability and how this regulation interacts with and differs with the specifications of other acts regulating the sector (the Environmental Protection Act, the Anti-Corruption Act, and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, etc.). Such differences create doubts concerning the nature of normative conflicts which are present such as a realization in the differing principles, concepts, evidentiary mechanisms, and sanctions. This scenario also highlights the need to develop harmonisation models that would be able to harmonise such differences in a systematic manner. Hence, the following research questions will be addressed in this study to enhance the legal confidence and the efficacy of corporate criminal regulation in Indonesia. II. RESEARCH METHOD This research utilizes a normative juridical or doctrinal research method of law. The selection hypothesis is defined by the aim of the research that involves the examination of the legal norms that create the system of the corporate criminal liability according to the 2023 Criminal Code and to other sectoral acts. Normative juridical research allows the investigator to scrutinize legal principles, concepts as well as regulatory structures in an organized way using pertinent legal materials. The method will enable the research to establish not only the similarities but also differences between norms but also examine the legal consequences of contradictory rules that are the crux of the research issue. The study uses a number of methods to come up with a holistic picture. It analyses the normative provisions of the 2023 Criminal Code, the Environmental Protection and Management Act, the Anti-, and the Anti-Money-laundering Act by the statute approach. This is the critical strategy of interpreting the erection of corporate criminal liability implied by all statutes. Secondly, theories of fault, corporate liability models and lex specialis application in the Indonesian criminal law system are analysed using the conceptual approach. To supplement the normative analysis, the case approach is also employed by the analysis of the relevant court decisions, so that the analysis does not only present the doctrinal views of the analysis but also the realities of the law enforcement practice. The legal sources I have employed in this research include the primary, secondary and tertiary legal sources. The main legal documents are the 2023 Criminal Code, the Environmental Protection and Management Act, the Anti-corruption act, the Antimoney laundering act, and the court decisions concerning corporate criminal liability. Secondary sources include books, academic articles on various journals, research conclusions, and institutional reports about regulatory trends and corporate criminal liability dynamics. The clarification of the terms and concepts behind the analysis is done using tertiary materials such as legal dictionaries and other supporting literature. The choice of these various sources of law makes sure that the discussion is based on a solid theoretical and normative ground and is academically valid. Descriptive-analytical approaches are used in the analysis of legal resources to elaborate the content and form of regulatory provisions in each statute. With the use of this methodological approach, the researcher can identify the normative provisions systematically before proceeding through evaluative levels. Besides, a normative comparative method is used to identify the similarities and differences between the corporate criminal liability rules under the 2023 Criminal Code and industry laws. The Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6461 comparative analysis, in its turn, creates the basics of defining the possible normative conflicts that are the main concerns of this research. Besides, systematic and teleological approaches to interpretation are also employed to evaluate inter-normative relationships and the purpose behind their development, which in turn helps to provide a consistent, logical and efficient model of harmonisation of corporate criminal liability norms. III. DISCUSSION A. Criminal Liability of Corporations, the 2023 Criminal Code Since the 2023 Criminal Code is a codification of criminal jurisprudence that is applied generally, this source provides a fundamental normative base of understanding the construction of corporate criminal liability in Indonesia. The Code does not only acknowledge corporations as the subject of the criminal law but also explains the categories of faults that can be placed on legal entities as the subject of the criminal law using the fault-based liability model. It governs the connection between the action of the company executives and the responsibility of the corporation, as well as the conditions under which an action can be considered as an attribute of the company. Moreover, its stipulations on the main and additional penalties on corporations show how the lawmakers tried to come up with punitive tools that are more flexible to the specifics of corporate crime. The given provisions should be thoroughly examined since the Criminal Code is an example of the lex generalis, which is the main reference point before it is compared to sectoral laws. The 2023 Criminal Code confirms corporations as subject-matter of criminal law and have the capacity to be shown as liable to acts they commit in the context of their commercial operations. This statement is an indication that the historical tradition of only natural persons being criminal offenders is being terminated. The Code also brings in a definition of a criminal act as the behavior that is subject to punishment under the provisions of the Code (T. D. Saputra et al., 2023) and makes it clear that both individuals and corporations are considered a subject of litigation and can be subject to criminal liability (Faradila & Kholim, 2024). This is an indication of a broadening of the criminal law system in Indonesia, which can no longer be reduced to the individual criminal perpetrators but to the collective criminal groups that accrue the rewards of the criminal activity. A striving to incorporate positive law with the national legal culture development, including more adaptive and responsive penal orientation in accordance with the needs of the society, can also be observed in the Code (A. Irawan & Wahyono, 2024). At the same time, the Indonesian criminal law system separates the general criminal law and special criminal law, in which some crimes are still under the control of sectoral laws that have unique regulatory features (Kadir, 2024). Explanation of definitions and liability issues thus forms an important ground on the analysis of fault models, the liability of corporate officers, and punishments that can be imposed on corporations. Since corporations have been recognized as objects of criminal law, the second question relates to the problem of attributing the fault to corporations. The 2023 Criminal Code supports the application of the fault-based liability model as the cornerstone of the criminal responsibility of legal entities, which means that the imposition of criminal constraints on legal entities still presupposes the demonstration of the fault. This fault can be committed by the actions or inaction of corporate officers, employees, or some other person acting on behalf of and on behalf of the corporation and thus creating a functional relationship that connects individual actions to the corporate responsibility. This strategy validates that the Code does not alter the principle of criminal-law underlying punishment, i.e., that fault is the foundation of punishment, albeit that the dimension of liability has been enlarged to cover collective entities. This liability model is still important in the changing criminal-law environment in Indonesia, especially since a number of industry laws have embraced strict or absolute liability, including environmental crimes, which provokes a discussion of whether the fault principle can always be consistent in the criminal punishment of corporations (Rasyidi et al., 2023). In the light of the 2023 Criminal Code, the fault includes dolo and culpa and thus allows corporations to be charged with both intentional and negligent actions that lead to harm. This is reflected in various scenarios, such as criminal negligence in the failure to meet an operation, such as the destruction of infrastructure by careless fibre-optic cable operators (Fatoni & Rosyadi, 2025). However, it is still difficult to apply the fault-based liability since the contemporary penal framework requires more adaptive responses to harmful activities in the society and cannot rely entirely on the punitive strategies that are absolute (Kabes et al., 2024). As a result, the history of the growth of the doctrine of corporate criminal liability demands an example that provides a balance between the principle of faults and the necessity of accountability in the context of combating the ever more sophisticated crime forms of companies. With the development of regulatory reforms, it is essential to review strategies that would be able to accommodate these two aspects of liability. On the one hand, the principle of fault has become the main one in the provision of substantive justice and to Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6462 safeguard the offenders against unfair punishment. Conversely, the need to counter the social and environmental damages created by corporate operations has led to the development of more responsible models of liability. It follows, therefore, that the combination of fault based liability and some of the strict liability would be a critical question in ensuring effective and fair criminallaw policies (Hasnda & Alhuda, 2025). This integrative strategy can contribute to a basis of harmonisation of the rules of the 2023 Criminal Code with the range of sectoral laws that form the present-day picture of the corporate criminal liability regulation in Indonesia. Finally, the establishment of the blame according to the Criminal Code (2023) will have to be connected to the organisational framework and the functions of corporate officers, thus providing a chance to promote the topic of individual liability and corporate liability interaction. The fault model that is represented in the 2023 Criminal Code is the initial prerequisite to establishing whether a corporation can be punished or not, but the factual condition of such fault must be provably related to those who perform corporate roles. The next question of establishing the principle of fault is followed by the distribution of the liability between corporate officers and the corporate itself. Code has a system of attribution that explains the relationship between personal actions and corporate liability, thus making sure that the imposition of penalties against firms is anchored on the real actions that are undertaken by the officers, employees, or any other person acting on behalf of the company. The 2023 Criminal Code provides that the corporate officers can become personally or collectively responsible with the corporation, depending on the role and severity of the responsibility. Those officers that command, authorize, or gain profit out of corporate criminal activity can be subject to punishments, and, as a result, the connection between an individual act and collective liability becomes obvious and measurable. Such a provision marks a substantive shift in the field of corporate criminal law because the corporations have become the subjects that are capable of committing crimes in the modern economic settings (Purba et al., 2025). Despite some sectoral laws that advocate strict liability, the officer fault continues to be the predominant foundation of ascribing liability onto corporations under section 2023 of the Criminal Code, thus maintaining the principle of culpability. Moreover, the Code has been predetermined by the increasing popularity of corporate social responsibility as one of the inseparable elements of corporate responsibility due to the large-scale implications of business operations on society and the environment (Sulestiyono, 2020). Therefore, the corporate officers not only must remain law-abiding members of the criminal law but should also embrace ethical business practices, and responsibility in governance. Violation of legal and ethical standards can harm the society and initiate corporate criminal liability. In this way, the Code underlines the critical role of the officers in ensuring the implementation of the law, the execution of oversight, and the elimination of criminal acts as the part of the substantive justice in the corporate activity (G. R. Saputra & Sewu, 2023). Upon the identification of liable parties, the discussion is shifted to the types of punishment that can be deployed against corporations as a result of such liability; the regulation of penalties is central since the kind of sanction that has been imposed on corporations determines the effectiveness of the corporate criminal liability in practice. The punitive tools provided in the 2023 Criminal Code provisions of penalties against corporations prove that the legislators want to develop punitive tools that are not only repressive but also corrective and preventive. The Code determines the fine as the main aspect of the punishment of corporations, which is complemented by other fines that can be provided with regard to the character of the crime. These ancillary punishments comprise disgorgement of illegal profits, business disclosure or limitation, responsible to cure the damages, and duties to comply to repair damages or avoiding recidivism. Such mechanisms provide lawenforcement agencies with discretion to select the most relevant sanctions that are deemed to be reasonable, based on the nature and effects of corporate actions. The fact that corporate criminal liability is recognized by the Law Number 1 of 2023 brings the scope of penalties and other forms of sanctions into the picture, including specialized sanctions to produce deterrent outcomes and ensure compliance (Fadhila, 2024). They are partial or total shutdown of business procedures, prohibition of some activities, and administrative measures directed to discontinue malpractices (Mukhlis & Sipatuhar, 2024). In line with this, the criminal code punitive tools are aimed at not only punishing but also to reform behavior and improve corporate governance. In addition, the Code lays great emphasis on restitution as a part of complementary punishment. Restitution-based sanctions are consistent with the increasing trend of restorative justice models in modern jurisdictions. The 2023 Criminal Code aims to provide the corporate punishment with the element of restoration of social, economic, and environmental damages by restitution systems on top of condemnation (Justiasari et al., 2024). However, restorative sanctions are often faced with effectiveness problems due to structural complexity in corporate contexts and weak enforcement instruments (Faradila & Kholim, 2024). In turn, the studies highlight that further reforms should be implemented in order to reinforce these restorative factors and make Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6463 sure that criminal-law tools leave a sufficient protection to the victims (Puteri et al., 2020). These issues prove that the efficiency of penal sanctions in question is heavily preconditioned by the interrelation between the Criminal Code and the sectoral statutes, thus being the reasons to value the importance of knowing the status of the Code as lex generalis. The status of the 2023 Criminal Code as the lex generalis of the Indonesian criminal-law is central, especially concerning the corporate penalty frameworks. Even though the Code provides an overall framework of corporate criminal liability and the kind of penalties that can be applied, sectoral laws remain a lex specialis, governing particular crimes with more specificity and often taking a more progressive stance. Such a relationship creates a possibility of overlap, tension, or even conflict where authorities are required to make decisions on which provisions are to be used to govern a specific corporate criminal action. In line with this, the role of the Criminal Code as the overall guide on the corporate punishment would be fundamental in evaluating the dissonance of the corporate criminal-liability laws in Indonesia. In this context, only general precepts of criminal responsibility are governed by the Criminal Code, with other areas of corporate crime governed by sector laws. As an example, the issue of corporate liability in aviation accidents is governed in-depth by Law Number 1 of 2009 on Aviation that states that the criminal law can be applied in case an accident meets the requirements of an offense (Morgan & Subekti, 2020). Equally, the establishment of corporate liability in money-laundering cases should take into account the principles of the Criminal Code as the leading one, despite the fact that the Anti-Money Laundering Act offers such special tools as reverse burden of proof (Pradityo & Mayasari, 2021). The notion of lex specialis derogat legi generali is a general method of analysis which is essential to explain the relationships between the Criminal Code and the sectoral acts. In those cases when the normative conflict occurs, the considerations provided in special legislation are superior to the considerations in the Criminal Code because they provide more specific considerations regarding the same legal issue. However, the generic rules of the Code still remain the primary premises of generic type of corporate criminal liability and help in the interpretation of the general principles of criminal responsibility. Corporate criminal liability enforced in the framework of the various regulations does not only imply the responsibility of the individual offenders but also the responsibility of the corporate bodies, thus supporting the general goals of accountability in criminal acts (Chandra & Sobirov, 2023). In its turn, the placing of the Criminal Code as lex generalis is central to the establishment of a consistent conceptual framework, despite the fact that its implementation has to be continuously modified in accordance with the sectoral provisions that constantly change along with the growing complexity of modern corporate crime. The interpretation of the place of the 2023 Criminal Code as lex generalis provides an indispensable analytic base before the further analysis of the way sectoral statutes form separate regimes of corporate criminal liability and how such differences can create a possible normative clash. B. Regulation of Corporate Criminal Liability in Sectoral Laws 1. Environmental Law (Law No. 32/2009) Being one of the most liberal sectoral laws, the Environmental Law (Law No. 32 of 2009) offers an example of corporate criminal liability that is significantly wider than the overall framework that is provided by the 2023 Criminal Code. The regulation came about after there was a significant rise in pollution and environmental degradation that could be largely blamed to industrial production and massive businesses and thus required a more stringent and more aggressive legal tool in protecting the environment. The Environmental Law clearly identifies corporations as a subject of criminal law and presents the mechanisms of liability that are not based on the establishment of guilt only but include strict and, under some conditions, absolute liability. In line with this, this statute establishes a more serious and preventive penal system to provide the protection of the ecology and secure the public well-being which is influenced by the business operations. In order to explain such progressive nature, the discussion below focuses on four main points which outline the differences between the Environmental Law and the 2023 Criminal Code: the foundation of strict and absolute liability, possible principal and supplementary penalties that can be imposed, the models of special evidence that are used, and the possible conflict with the principle of fault which is embedded in the Criminal Code. In the context of liability, the use of strict liability and in some situations the absolute liability is one of the most prominent features of the Environmental Law. Both methods approve criminal responsibility without the need to show faults, so long as the corporate actions are shown to have resulted in pollution or harm of the environment. Article 88 of Law No. 32 of 2009, which defines strict liability, allows the State to convict the perpetrator without proving dolus or culpa, which is a mechanism that is considered a necessity in the context of environmental offences since, in most cases, the latter are intricate technical processes that are difficult to prove using traditional evidentiary techniques (Makhron, 2025). This strategy is meant to quicken the police Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6464 force and limit the chances of not taking responsibility and making the corporations take precautionary measures in their business (A. S. Nurdin et al., 2022). On the other hand, academic debate and practical implementation of enforcement practice suggests that the effectiveness of the strict liability is highly conditional on the quality of subordinate regulations and the ability of the enforcement institutions. Some studies argue that the implementation of this principle is weak, there is an ambiguity in the evidentiary processes and that the institutional resources are insufficient to ensure that this principle meets its goals optimally (D. A. Kurniawan & Hoesein, 2025). As a result, the reconstruction of enforcement frameworks becomes the pressing need, which includes the improvement of the capabilities of investigators, prosecutors, and judges to handle the complicated environmental cases (I. Kurniawan, 2023). With this in mind, strict and absolute liability application under the Environmental Law is rather a repressive tool than part of a wider legal approach to attain ecological justice and environmental sustainability. This strategy exhibits regulatory aggressiveness in dealing with the complexity of crimes against the environment that are not easily dealt with by traditional methods of evidence. Nevertheless, in spite of its progressive disposition, this regulation does not eliminate the unresolved matters of harmonization with the principle of fault that is the main foundation of criminal punishment in the 2023 Criminal Code. The conflict between the strict liability and the principle of fault create discussion regarding the coherence and concord of criminal norms. To that end, the discussion continues to further relevant elements, which are the variety of criminal and auxiliary penalties, the special evidentiary frameworks used in the Environmental Law and how they can be incompatible with the fault principle in the Criminal Code. In addition to the strict liability, the Environmental Law offers a much wider range of kinds of penalties and additional punishments compared with the general scope presented in the 2023 Criminal Code. The most common criminal penalties on corporations include large fines, and additional penalties include the requirement to restore the environment, temporarily inhibit the business, close down permits, seize gains of criminal activity, and undertake certain remedial measures to deal with the damages. The variety of these torture tools implies that the environmental regulation of law is not aimed exclusively at deterring but at restoration of the ecology and preventing the repetition of the crime. Practically, the corporate criminal liability of Law No. 32 of 2009 can be enforced in case a corporation is detected to pollute; e.g. illegal dumping of dangerous wastes. Fines and business permit revocation are some of the tools that can be used as a way to promote compliance and enhance environmental protection (Bida & Adiyaryani, 2022). Furthermore, when the doctrine of strict liability is used in the enforcement of environmental law, the evidentiary process is likely to be conducted in a faster manner since it does not require the demonstration of the elements of fault, and thus it helps to reduce the possibility of offenders evading the responsibility (Fitriani, 2021). However, the process of implementing environmental penal sanctions is not always carried out without any complications. Empirical studies indicate that the application of criminal penalties and the control of corporate conduct are often met with challenges, such as a limited ability of regulatory bodies and challenges in ensuring corporate conduct after the court makes decisions (Winarsa et al., 2022). To address such limitations, other methods have already been started to be implemented, like restorative justice, especially in relation to ecological restoration and community empowerment of the affected people (Subarsyah, 2020). This strategy highlights the fact that the effectiveness of environmental punishment should be developed based on a mutual combination of criminal penalties, ecological recovery, and a powerful system of supervision to achieve a more holistic protection of Indonesia (D. O. Irawan et al., 2025). In spite of the array of penal instruments that exist, the efficacy of enforcing is inseparable of the apparentiary paradigm that is used. As a result, one of the most peculiar aspects of the Environmental Law should be discussed, which is the specially designed evidentiary model that is designed to overcome the peculiarities of environmental crimes and asymmetry of information between the enforcement authorities and the corporations. Besides providing a wide range of penalties, the Environmental Law provides a special evidentiary model that is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of penalties against corporations. The evidentiary mechanism of this statute does not have to be based solely on the duty of the prosecutor to demonstrate all the elements of an offense, it also allows reversing the evidentiary loads of documents, permits and functioning procedures of companies. This method is based on the assumption that corporations have technical abilities much bigger than the State to manage the information about their production processes, this is why the distribution of evidentiary burdens should be adapted to the nature of the crimes harming the environment that is often hidden in the organizational and technological mazes. The use of the strict liability principle in Article 88 of Law No. 32 of 2009, which expressly provides that the corporation can be criminally liable without the identification of fault, either through the action of a wilful intent or negligently (Muslim, 2021). In this Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6465 way, the Environmental Law provides a set of grounds on how law enforcement agencies can better prosecute corporations, particularly when it comes to pollution-related cases, which are hard to establish using the more traditional inquiry tools (Rasyidi et al., 2023). However, the implementation practice continues to be faced by the issue of difficulty, where officials often become confined to fault-based practices that hinder the application of strict liability as envisaged by the law (Winarsa et al., 2022). Here, principles like piercing the corporate veil can also be seen as a tool of infiltrating corporate forms when it is needed, and thus, it allows the shareholders or controlling parties to become liable in case they have been demonstrated to use the legal person as a tool to perpetrate environmental crimes (Juniar, 2021). The combination of strict liability, special evidentiary rules, and the attribution tools, like the concept of piercing the corporate veil, proves that the Environmental Law attempts to form a more effective and responsive to the intricacy of the ecological crimes, which are frequently concealed in the structure of the contemporary organizations. Nevertheless, the progressive approach does not come without its consequences as it creates a conflict with the principles of the criminal law as governed in the 2023 Criminal Code. On the basis of this, despite the fact that the liability regime provided by the Environmental Law includes more aggressive and responsive mechanisms to ecological crimes, the given regulation leads to the creation of a fundamental conflict with the principle of fault that is the key pillar of criminal responsibility in the 2023 Criminal Code. Criminal Code follows the fault-based pattern of liability in which dolus or culpa must be demonstrated to be the foundation of punishment, thus criminal sanctions can only be applied in instances when subjective fault is established. In comparison, the Environmental Law predicts the existence of strict liability and, in some cases, absolute liability, which does not presuppose the fault, but in case of pollution or environmental damage is proved (Fitriani, 2021). This underlying difference in orientation creates a high potential normative conflict especially when the enforcement authorities have to make decisions as to whether to apply the general principles of the Criminal Code or the special rules of the Environmental Law. Practically, the inflexibility of the fault principle of the Criminal Code is often an enforcing barrier in the cases concerning the environment, particularly in those cases where the offense is committed in complicated technological ways, and the individual liability is hard to establish (Fitriani, 2021). Thus, strict liability is perceived as more suitable to deal with the various types of environmental crime with extensive and systemic effects and increase the level of corporate responsibility in large-scale capitalism (Fitriani, 2021). This normative deviation is one of the main points of contention between Criminal Code and the Environmental Law and requires a thorough examination to find out working areas of harmonization. According to different studies, a regulatory reconstruction and changes in enforcement strategies will be needed to help tone the tension between the fault principle and strict liability and, at the same time, to provide more effective environmental protection (Winarsa et al., 2022). Such policy innovations that are not based on the demonstration of individual misconduct include the development of tightened mechanisms of strict liability, the expansion of supervisory capacity, or the development of ecological restoration devices are deemed to have the potential to enhance the efficiency of criminal penalties against corporations that commit pollution or environmental harm (Putra et al., 2022). In this regard, the contradiction between the liability model of the Criminal Code and the Environmental Law is a major concern, which should be logically charted to reach a consistent harmonisation of the norms under the frame of the corporate criminal law in Indonesia. 2. Corruption Crimes Law (Law No. 31/1999 as amended by Law No. 20/2001) Law No. 31 / 1999 that has been amended by the Law No. 20/ 2001 can be viewed as one of the most aggressive sectoral laws that regulate corporate criminal liability, in particular cases of bribery, gratification and the actions that result in state losses. Corporate corruption is usually done in the internal organization by use of positional authority, institutional facilities, structural hierarchies, and preferred access to the process of obtaining influence, licensing, or transactions in the public sector. Here, the corporations are considered as entities that are directly or indirectly benefitted by the corrupt practices and that is why the Corruption Crimes Law directly acknowledges the corporations as objects of criminal responsibility. This control phase illustrates how the state cares about going beyond individual criminals to include the businesses that also form strategic points in the organized crimes of corruption. Empirical studies have continually shown that the principle of corporate corrupt liability requires a framework of conceptualization where the corporate managers are classified as the offenders, with the corporation as the beneficiary (Purba et al., 2025). The harmful impacts of corporate corruption are not limited to loss of funds to the state since they deter development, destroy social services, and create a long-term social issue (Hartanto & Buwono, 2024). As a result, asset recovery has become a key focus in implementing the Corruption Crimes Law, and the use of the so-called Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) is becoming a more frequent option to ensure the swift recovery of state losses and the willingness of corporations to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in uncovering corruption cases (Burrohim et al., 2022). Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6472 of KUHP and sectoral laws to ensure that Indonesia is not caught between two evidentiary regimes that interfere with their workability. Accordingly, the point of bifurcation between the strict liability of sectoral laws and the fault-based model of KUHP is one of the most obvious instances of normative contestation, and needs to be reformed and aligned to allow evidentiary processes of corporate criminal responsibility to work harmoniously, efficiently and in line with the current penal aims. 4. Conflicts in Type of Sanctions and Enforcement The separation of the 2023 Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHP 2023) and sectoral legislation is visible in the differences of the organization and modalities of penalties assigned to corporate entities. The environmental protection and management law (PPLH) and the mining law (Minerba) by means of sectoral statutes bring in a tiered sanctioning system that combines administrative and criminal sanctions. Under these laws, administrative violations of the law like failure to comply with permits, operating above allowed pollution levels, or failure at environmental regulatory roles can result in criminal acts unless the violator takes measures to minimize them or they cause significant environmental or societal damage. This is a tier of sanctioning that is not explicitly recognized in KUHP 2023 which maintains a firmer divide between the administrative and the criminal worlds. As a result, the unequal manner of application creates discrepancies in the classification of corporate violations and enforcement modalities. Scholarly research suggests that even though KUHP 2023 provides a firmer overarching scheme that legitimises corporations as criminal actors (Setiawan & Said, 2025), sector-specific law like the PPLH is still faced with considerable difficulties in implementation. Kurniawan and Hoesein (D. A. Kurniawan & Hoesein, 2025) argue that the PPLH corporate liability regime requires reconstruction in order to incorporate both penal and restorative entails, thus realizing a more holistic ecological justice. Inequality also occurs in the taxation field, where the corporate criminal liability regime under the Taxation Law (KUP) fails to align with the overall principles provided by KUHP (Rusito & Suwardi, 2021). The current literature further highlights that despite the fact that the provisions of PPLH allow the introduction of additional sanctions, including environmental restoration requirements, there is no elaborate provision of regulations that prevent the effective implementation of the prescription (Harahap et al., 2024). These results prove that the differences in the sanction schemes between KUHP and sectoral acts do not only have a normative but also a significant effect on the provision of the practical effectiveness of the action. In addition to single differences in sanction structures, there is also the issue of disagreements due to the range of other sanctions that can be implemented under sectoral statutes. The Environmental Law and the Anti-Money Laundering Law (TPPU) provides a wider and more comprehensive range of additional sanctions, as compared to KUHP 2023. These laws allow the courts to approve environmental restoration measures, remediation liability, business suspension, revocation of license, property confiscation, and each particular action based on the extent of damage and the profits obtained by a corporation (Sinaga, 2021). Such strategy is based on the fact that the harms produced by environmental degradation and money laundering are systemic and they harm the people and destabilise economies. On the other hand, KUHP 2023 does not leave its list of other sanctions on corporations, such as the loss of their license or disbandment, which are also projected as key deterrent tools (Fadhila, 2024). However, the scope of other sanctions provided by KUHP is still smaller as compared to those provided by sectoral legislations, which are specifically designed with restorative, preventive, and benefit-disrupting aims. Faradila and Kholim (Faradila & Kholim, 2024) note that even though KUHP provides more vivid delineations concerning additional sanctions, judicial application continues to face structural issues, the first one being limited oversight power, technical problems with the calculation of losses, and a lack of operational specifications. Thus, the variations in the types of sanctions do not have a positive effect only on the goals of penalties but also on judicial discretion in choosing effective measures to compensate society damages and prevent recidivism. These differences also point to the fact that the issues with implementation are not only based on the norms that are to be applied but also on the institutional frameworks in which enforcement would occur. Beside the substantive and structural inequality, the implementation conflict arises because of institutional overlaps and piecemeal law enforcement. Within corporate criminal prosecutions agencies including the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK), the Financial Services Authority (OJK) and the Indonesian National Police (Polri) all have their own mandate, which is often isolated. Poor interagency coordination leads to case management that is not synchronised, normatively, and strategically in the enforcement. Paselon (Paselon, 2021) notes that, although KUHP recognizes corporate criminal liability, its definitions and scopes are weak on the practices specific to the industry, including the work of contractors, which leads to ambiguities in its implementation. Winarsa et al. (Winarsa et al., 2022) and Desianto (Desianto, 2022) go further to show that despite the Environmental Law presenting a Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6473 clear foundation of corporate liability, the coordination among KLHK, Polri, and OJK has been very weak creating inconsistencies in enforcing the law. The same is echoed in the world of finance and corruption-related crimes, in which the KPK, PPATK, and OJK need to coordinate their efforts to enable the effective implementation. Different sectoral regulatory frameworks create differences in the standards of evidence, types of sanctions, and investigative powers (Jatmika & Hasya, 2023). Such fragmentation increases the vulnerability of inconsistent norms implementation particularly when one agency follows strict liability and another follows the fault-based approach. Therefore, the issue of sanctions and implementation is not only a diversity of laws, but also a lack of institutional alignment. Combined, those dynamics highlight the need of systematic harmonisation between KUHP 2023 and sectoral legislations to ensure corporate criminal law enforcement undergoes greater consistency, coherence, and effectiveness addressing the complexity of modern corporate offenses. D. Harmonising Corporate Criminal Liability Norms Models The fact that the approaches to regulating corporate criminal liability are much different in KUHP 2023 and other sectoral laws proves that the criminal law system in Indonesia is disjointed. The variation in the principles of liability, the concepts of the Mens Rea, the use of the evidence mechanisms, and the mechanism of sanctions have led to a collision of norms and inconsistency in the law enforcement. This situation demonstrates that KUHP as a lex generalis has not completely assimilated sectoral regimes with specific goals and objectives that react to various forms of corporate crimes. Hence, the harmonisation model is needed that would bring together the principles, the standards of evidence and the structures of sanctions in such a manner that the criminal liability of corporations could be applied in a consistent, proportional, and the manner corresponding to the requirements of the contemporary penal goals. The section describes the methods of harmonisation that could enhance normative consistency between KUHP and industry legislation in the framework of a unified criminal law. 1. Harmonization of Structures in Statutes Structural harmonization is part of the initial approach of aligning the 2023 Indonesian criminal code (KUHP) with the legislation sector. The strategy involves the methodical mapping of divergences in underlying principles, constructions of liability, evidentiary mechanisms, and typologies of sanction between KUHP as a lex generalis and sectoral as a lex specialis. When these differences are discovered, a transparent hierarchical or functional rapport is drawn up where KUHP will provide the overall general principles and rules of corporate criminal responsibility, and sectoral regulations will cover specific situations where precise more specialised regulations are necessary in their respective areas. This congruity provides law-enforcement personnel with a clear direction on the priority and complementary enforcement of KUHP and sectoral regulations in the prosecution of company crimes. Extensive literature shows that the key to overcoming the disparities that constantly emerge in the application of the concept of corporate criminal liability is structural harmonization, and they are especially evident when it comes to cases of corruption, money-laundering, and environmental crimes, where there is a high degree of overlapping regulatory regimes (Mustafiddin et al., 2023). Fragmentation of regulations has been indicated to affect the efficacy of enforcement since each law employs various concepts, models of liability, and evidentiary standards. Jiwanti (Jiwanti, 2023) makes observations that, when there is no harmonization, environmental law enforcement does not achieve its objectives of environmental protection because institutional mandates overlap and evidentiary burdens are in conflict between KUHP and sectoral statutes. The comparative studies of other countries like Brazil also demonstrate that the coordination of general and sectoral laws improves the performance of anticorruption and strengthens environmental responsibility (Heryani, 2023). In this regard, the concept of structural harmonization can be regarded as one of the strategies that would reinforce the alignment of KUHP 2023 with sectoral legislation and ensure that corporate criminal enforcement would be coherent, effective, and aligned with the modern penal purpose (Listiyani & Nopliardy, 2022). 2. Systematic Interpretation Harmonisation may then be done through systematisation interpretation as soon as structural relationships are created. This approach places the KUHP 2023 and the industry laws in the same legal framework and provides that every provision is not read in isolation, but in connection with its legislative context, intent and how it connects with the surrounding norms. By applying the systematic interpretation, judges and the law-enforcement authorities will prevent the existence of normative conflicts by choosing the readings that will promote the aims of legal certainty, justice, and benefit to the people. It is done to make sure that KUHP as a lex generalis cannot be separated by sectoral statutes as lex specialis and that they are inseparable as they combine to create a single system of corporate criminal liability. Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6474 Experienced literature highlights that it is specifically important that the systematic interpretation is employed in the case of corporate criminal law reform. Although KUHP is an important step in this direction, as it formally acknowledges corporations as criminal subjects, it also creates inconsistencies with normative alignment in the case of implementation with sectoral regulations (Indraswara et al., 2024). Under these conditions, systematic interpretation serves to resolve discrepancies occurring due to the divergence of principles, evidentiary pressures and sanction apparatus among statutes. When systematically applied but not mechanically, the doctrine of lex specialis provides that sectoral legislation is used as a tool that compliments KUHP but does not contradict it (Kusumo, 2020). Furthermore, the two-fold model of the corporate criminal liability in Indonesia that includes direct and indirect attribution proves that corporations are currently regarded as legal entities with substantive criminal liability, which may be fully attributed to them (Ragil et al., 2024). In this context, systematic interpretation will allow equality to the relevant application of the central ideas of managerial responsibility, attribution of acts, corporate fault evaluation, and loss-recovery provisions between KUHP and sectoral laws. Normative fragmentation is also reduced by using this method, and the achievement of the enforcement objectives, which include effectiveness, efficiency, and substantive justice, could be reached in cases of corporate crime (Karna & Purwani, 2025). However, systematic interpretation is not enough without operational guidance that can be used as a common reference to the practitioners, therefore, harmonisation needs to be supported with detailed corporate prosecution guidelines that are able to synchronise investigative, prosecutorial and sentencing practices. 3. Corporate Criminal Prosecution Guidelines Development Another harmonisation model is the elaboration of standardized prosecution principles on the corporate criminal liability. These guidelines would make up a single source of reference to law-enforcement officials during investigations, prosecution and sentencing and stop practices that rely on different interpretations amongst the individual agencies. Ideally, the guidelines would create apparent evidences standards, sanctions standards, boundaries of managerial accountability, indications of intent and good, and inter-agency coordination machinery. Similar tools have been effective in other jurisdictions and they have helped to increase transparency and responsibility in criminal enforcement by corporations. An emerging literature attests to the expediency of the introduction of formal prosecution guidelines to the Indonesian corporate-crime situation. Corporate criminal liability, be it environmental or corruption, needs more articulated legal norms because otherwise prosecutors are trapped by the flaws of the structure or contradictory institutional interpretations (Chandra & Sobirov, 2023). Other mechanisms, including Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) are also considered potentially more effective in strengthening enforcement since they promote state recovery of losses and corporate cooperation in revealing criminal behavior, even though their regulatory structure remains refined to provide substantive justice (Burrohim et al., 2022). Moreover, the prosecution rules play an important role in ensuring that criminal responsibility will not cease upon the corporate body as an abstract, but also upon the personalities holding strategic roles in the organisational frame as well. To create more pronounced deterrence and to prevent the use of corporate entities as a veil of crime, the prosecution of the directors, or decision-makers, or persons which enjoy the benefits of the corporate wrongdoing must occur (K. D. Kurniawan & Esfandiari, 2021). This strategy conforms to the academic knowledge that considers uniformity, openness, and transparency of prosecution activities to be critical in ensuring that people have confidence in enforcing criminal acts in corporations (Aryani, 2023). In this connection, the elaboration of corporate prosecution principles can be assessed as a strategic tool of harmonisation, allowing to offer a single model of operation, minimise the differences between agencies, and ensure the consideration of the concept of justice, legal certainty, and the common good in practice. 4. Sectarian Legislative Revision or Remodeling of KUHP In addition to the guidelines on prosecution, harmonisation of corporate criminal liability norms can also be done by altering sectoral legislation or changing the Criminal Code of 2023 (KUHP). The need to make such revisions arises when the provisions of the sectoral law become so different to, or no longer conform to the principles of the general criminal law. The given strategy enables lawmakers to define the limits of administrative offenses and corporate offenses, reinforce the connection between the corporate structure and the legal liability, and streamline the evidentiary processes in order to make them more relevant in practice. The academic literature highlights the need to amend the sectoral laws so as to create more explicit and orderly regulations on corporate criminal liability and especially in economic crimes and crimes involving sophisticated organisational frameworks. To illustrate, studies of construction failures suggest that the sector needs to have its own regulations specifying that corporations and their executives must share collective responsibility in case of violations (Paselon, 2021). These adjustments are not only effective in strengthening deterrence, but they are also important in making sure that key decision-makers are not able to emerge clean by hiding behind the corporate form. Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6475 On the other hand, a number of studies point out that the Criminal Code needs to be improved to be able to better represent the development of corporate crimes within various sectors that have unique attributes. The Criminal Code should give a more illustrated structure of certain crimes like corruption, money laundering, or aviation-related crimes, which are still mostly covered by sectoral legislation (Hasnda & Alhuda, 2025). The alignment of these norms will reduce repetitive provisions on the overlapping provisions of the Criminal Code as the lex generalis and the applicable sector regulations as the lex specialis. The amendments to sectoral laws and changes in the Criminal Code also are instrumental in enhancing the tendency of sentencing towards loss compensation and the interference of criminalized economic profits. Research indicates that the efficiency of corporate criminal prosecution is extremely dependent on the expressiveness of formulations of sanctions and responsibility, such as the need to compensate losses as an essential part of punishment (Kabes et al., 2024). Through the more unified and standardised systems of criminal law, the criminal law system in Indonesia will be in better institutional positions to enable corporate transparency and accountability alongside supporting a business environment based on fair and integrity (Hasnda & Alhuda, 2025). Such organizational and legislative adaptations, however, are not enough in itself. Another level of action is a substantive model of harmonisation which is able to accommodate the disparities in principles and concepts among criminal law regimes, and thus guaranteeing the harmonisation of the corporate criminal liability regime in Indonesia. 5. Integrative Model of Corporate Criminal Liability Substantive harmonisation, in this case, can be realised by integrative model of corporate criminal responsibility. This pattern aims at integrating the major ideas of fault-based liability as outlined in the Criminal Code into the incremental solutions incorporated in the range of sectoral legislation. In this context, the element of fault is the foundation of criminal punishment yet it is supported by other parameters that include economic gains enjoyed by the corporation, failures of internal control, and breach of the compliance standards. This method gives the elasticity needed to address the dynamics that a modern corporate crime presents which is multifaceted yet does not lose sight of the principles that the criminal law is founded upon. The integrative model is especially applicable in those areas that relate to economic criminality which include taxation and corruption. Businesses paying their taxes, including, but not limited to, corporate compliance, imply that both tougher criminal penalties and regular enforcement tools should be used to save the state income (Dewa & Tanudjaja, 2024). Broad regulatory frameworks have been found useful in encouraging corporations to engage actively in corruption prevention in cases of corruption, particularly when the compliance incentives and penalty threats are well harmonized (Alfianda et al., 2024). Moreover, it is necessary to combine strict liability and vicarious liability with each other because corporations operate on behalf of people and to their benefit (Isa et al., 2025). This in turn requires the enhancing of internal controls by oversight systems, risk management systems and preventive measures that are in line with restorative solutions and governance reforms in many studies (Muttaqien & Purwati, 2025). This model of substantive harmonisation in the end will serve to increase transparency and accountability in dealing with corporate crime and also increase the legitimacy of the legal system among the individual. The integrative approach trades off the legal predictability of the law and the practicality of enforcement by enabling more flexibility to the changing nature of corporate wrongdoing. The harmonisation is not just aimed at standardising norms but is also an assurance that the criminal law is responsive, proportional, and relevant to the challenges one is to face in the future in terms of criminal enforcement of businesses (M & Hardianto, 2024). IV. CONCLUSIONS This paper has shown that the corporate criminal liability regulation of the Criminal Code of 2023 and other sectoral laws are not harmonised enough, which gives rise to major normative and implementation issues. Being a general codification of criminal law, the Criminal Code of 2023 offers a better base to acknowledge corporations as subjects of criminal law, with provisions on fault, act attribution, and the kind of principal and ancillary punishment that can be meted on. These provisions involve an important move towards enhancing corporate responsibility and aligning the Indonesian criminal law with the current state of crime. Nevertheless, the Criminal Code still follows the liability based on fault and traditional evidentiary standards that are not similar to those employed by many other sectoral laws. Sectoral regulations like the Environmental Protection Law, the Corruption Crimes Law and the Anti-Money Laundering Law (AML Law) on the other hand implement more progressive and aggressive corporate liability regimes. The Environmental Protection Law is strict liability, the Corruption Crimes Law employs the beneficial interest model, and the AML Law employs the follow-the-money model and reverse burden of proof. The strategies are meant to deal with sector specific, complex, organised and, in many cases, entrenched crimes that form part of corporate systems. Nonetheless, the variety of ideas, values, and Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6476 evidences does not necessarily fit the overall picture of the Criminal Code. Consequently, there are normative conflicts such as the differences in the occurrence of liability, construction of fault, attribution models, required evidence, and the structure of sanctions. This disharmony is a direct attack on the effectiveness of policing. Officers are continually faced with the difficulty of finding an appropriate legal basis, and can allow discrepancies in the evidentiary standards be tolerated between investigative, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory stages. The overlapping of levels of mandates of KLHK, KPK, PPATK, OJK, and the National Police systematizes the systemic loss of the state, introducing legal uncertainty to businesses and weakening the competence of the state in preventing corporate offenses. As such, the process of developing an overall framework of corporate criminal liability is still marred by conceptual, structural, and institutional challenges. Considering these tensions and its consequences, the current investigation underscores the need to have a holistic harmonization framework. The structural harmonization is a necessity towards clarifying the hierarchical nexus between the KUHP as lex generalis and sectoral statutes as lex specialis, and thus, law enforcement agencies will be able to enforce the relevant norms uniformly. It is necessary to have systematic hermeneutics that ensures that regulatory divergences are not framed in isolation but that they are framed within a systematic jurisprudential system. Also, the idea of cohesive prosecutorial principles is justified in a manner that avoids investigative and prosecutorial operations to be subjected to contingent proprietary definitions of particular services; rather, these ought to comply with prescriptive evidentiary standards, accountability measures, and penitentiary standards. Such legislative changes to sector laws or adjustments to the KUHP are also required to occupy the boundary between administrative violations and corporate crime, and to strengthen the restitution tools, as well as to simplify the liability structures of the specific economic segments. The actualization of substantive harmonization can be done through an integrative corporate criminal liability architecture. This construct composites the fault doctrine set out in the KUHP, with industry-specific standards, such as pecuniary benefits, supervisory inadequacies, and compliance standards. The integrative model maintains the principles of criminal jurisprudence by ensuring the necessary level of flexibility to address the complexity of the modern corporate malfeasance. Based on this, legal certainty, the protection of the society, and the effective enforcement of the law can be achieved at the level of the Indonesian legal system. All in all, the results testify to the harmonization of corporate criminal liability laws being a critical precondition of developing an effective, commensurate, and responsive criminal justice apparatus. Structural, hermeneutic, procedural, legislative and substantive harmonization initiatives have the potential of resolving normative discordances, enhancing interagency cooperation, and increasingly enhancing corporate accountability and prudence. These efforts will take the criminal justice system in Indonesia towards a more progressive, transparent, and a more socially responsible model of governance. REFERENCES 1) Abidin, R. B. M. Z., Suhartono, M., & Nussy, I. H. (2023). Disoriented Law Enforcement Against Corporations Commit Money Laundering. Jurnal Hukum Dan Kenotariatan, 7(2), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.33474/hukeno.v7i1.19895 2) Afdhali, D. R., & Triadi, I. (2024). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Terhadap Pencemaran Lingkungan Hidup. In Journal Evidence Of Law (Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 68–73). CV Era Digital Nusantara. https://doi.org/10.59066/jel.v3i2.673 3) Alfianda, R., Risardi, M., Kamisan, Amin, M., Sarioda, Maulida, R., & Albayani, A. Z. (2024). Tindak Pidana Korupsi dan Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi. In Wathan: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora (Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 64–75). Fanshur Institute: Research and Knowledge Sharing in Aceh. https://doi.org/10.71153/wathan.v1i1.23 4) Andriani, A. (2024). Criminal Acts Against the Judicial Process (Contempt of Court) According to the New Criminal Code About the Right to Immunity of Advocates in Court. Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, 5(6), 2847–2860. https://doi.org/10.59141/jist.v5i6.1113 5) Anggraeni, D., & Amrullah, M. K. (2023). Promoting the Urgency of Restorative Justice to Environmental Law Enforcement Officials Through Civic Engagement Education. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 42(1), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v42i1.56292 6) Ariyanto, A. (2025). The Specificity of Tax Criminal Law as Bijzonder Strafrecht in Indonesia. JLSDGR, 5(3), e05163. https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730x.sdgsreview.v5.n03.pe05163 7) Aryani, F. D. (2023). Kriminalisasi dan Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korporasi. In SALAM: Jurnal Sosial dan Budaya Syar-i (Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 833–842). LP2M Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. https://doi.org/10.15408/sjsbs.v10i3.32575 Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6477 8) Asnar, A. (2024). Comparison of Effectiveness of Criminal Sanctions and Administrative Sanctions in Environmental Law Enforcement Policy. Opsearch American Journal of Open Research, 3(1), 870–876. https://doi.org/10.58811/opsearch.v3i1.94 9) Astuti, H. D., Yulianah, Y., & Safitri, I. (2024). Law Enforcement Against Business Actors Who Cause Water Pollution. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 2(2), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v2i2.300 10) Awuah, B., Yazdifar, H., & Elbardan, H. (2023). Corporate Reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals: A Structured Literature Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 20(4), 617–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/jaoc-10-2022-0155 11) Berutu, C. A. V., Sirait, N. N., Siregar, M., & Marlina, M. (2022). Perampasan Aset Pengendali Korporasi Sebagai Pengganti Pidana Denda Dalam Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang. In Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review (pp. 357–366). Locus Media Publishing. https://doi.org/10.56128/ljoalr.v1i6.87 12) Bida, L., & Adiyaryani, N. N. (2022). PERUSAKAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP: BAGAIMANA TANGGUNGJAWAB KORPORASI DALAM HUKUM PIDANA? In Kertha Semaya : Journal Ilmu Hukum (Vol. 10, Issue 4, p. 727). Universitas Udayana. https://doi.org/10.24843/ks.2022.v10.i04.p01 13) Burrohim, H., Suarda, I. G. W., & Azizah, A. (2022). Pengembalian Kerugian Keuangan Negara melalui Perjanjian Penundaan Penuntutan dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi oleh Korporasi. In JURNAL RECHTENS (Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 1–16). Universitas Islam Jember. https://doi.org/10.56013/rechtens.v11i1.1137 14) Butarbutar, L. E., Widijowati, R. D., & Makbul, A. (2022). PERAN TEORI IDENTIFIKASI DALAM PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN KORPORASI PADA TINDAK PIDANA PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN. In Kertha Semaya : Journal Ilmu Hukum (Vol. 10, Issue 7, p. 1677). Universitas Udayana. https://doi.org/10.24843/ks.2022.v10.i07.p18 15) Carwan, & Lestari, S. I. (2023). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi dan Pengurusnya dalam Penegakan Kerusakan Lingkungan Hidup akibat Limbah B3. In Syntax Idea (Vol. 5, Issue 11, pp. 2130–2145). Ridwan Institute. https://doi.org/10.46799/syntax-idea.v5i11.2720 16) Chandra, T. Y., & Sobirov, B. (2023). Corporate Criminal Liability for Illegal Toxic and Hazardous Waste Dumping. Lex Publica, 10(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.58829/lp.10.1.2023.123-140 17) Desianto, R. (2022). Sengketa Kewenangan Penyidikan Dalam Rangka Pemberantasan Korupsi. Kertha Wicaksana, 16(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.22225/kw.16.2.2022.123-139 18) Dewa, R. C., & Tanudjaja, T. (2024). Tanggung Jawab Pidana pada Korporasi dalam Tindak Pidana Perpajakan. In Jurnal Hukum Indonesia (Vol. 3, Issue 3, pp. 96–106). Riviera Publishing. https://doi.org/10.58344/jhi.v3i3.1005 19) Dolong, R. D. (2025). Analisis Hukum Pidana Dan Pertanggungjawaban Perambahan Di Kawasan Konservasi Indonesia. Jurnal Yustisiabel, 9(2), 220–237. https://doi.org/10.32529/yustisiabel.v9i2.4398 20) Fadhila, K. W. (2024). Reformasi Hukum Pidana dan Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi dalam UU KUHP 2023. In Action Research Literate (Vol. 8, Issue 3, pp. 649–657). Ridwan Institute. https://doi.org/10.46799/arl.v8i3.277 21) Fajarudin, M. (2021). Corporate Criminal Liability Arrangements in the IUS Constituendum. Eduvest - Journal of Universal Studies, 1(7), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.36418/edv.v1i7.110 22) Faradila, F., & Kholim, N. (2024). Sanksi Pidana Tambahan Terhadap Korporasi dalam Praktik Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia. In Action Research Literate (Vol. 8, Issue 11, pp. 3174–3184). Ridwan Institute. https://doi.org/10.46799/arl.v8i11.2349 23) Fatoni, S., & Rosyadi, I. (2025). Model Sinkronisasi Hukum Dalam Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana Operator Kabel Fiber Optik. Adliya Jurnal Hukum Dan Kemanusiaan, 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.15575/adliya.v18i1.33627 24) Firdaus, A., Suhaidi, Sunarmi, S., & Leviza, J. (2020). Environmental Criminal Responsibility for Mining Corporation Through the Ultimum Remedium Principle. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200306.179 25) Fitriani, H. Y. (2021). PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA KORPORASI DALAM TINDAK PIDANA LINGKUNGAN HIDUP BERDASARKAN ASAS STRICT LIABILITY (STUDI KASUS PENCEMARAN LINGKUNGAN OLEH PT. RAYON UTAMA MAKMUR (RUM) KABUPATEN SUKOHARJO). In Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan Ekonomi (Vol. 8, Issue 2, p. 64). Universitas Sebelas Maret. https://doi.org/10.20961/hpe.v8i2.49757 26) Foster, A. (2023). Analysis of the Mechanism of Restitution and Its Impact on the Financial Recovery of the State Due to Corruption Offenses. Interdiciplinary Journal and Hummanity (Injurity), 2(7), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.58631/injurity.v2i7.96 Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6478 27) Frans, M. P., Sari, A., Panji, K. Y., & Ismara, Y. B. C. (2024). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Bank Sebagai Pengguna Artificial Intelligence. Jurnal Usm Law Review, 7(2), 901–915. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v7i2.9026 28) Fuadi, G., Putri, W. V, & Prasetyoningsih, N. (2024). Mengkaji Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Pada Tindak Pidana Ketenaganukliran Dalam Pembaruan Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 21(1), 130–155. https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v21i1.1081 29) Gustafsson, M., Schilling‐Vacaflor, A., & Lenschow, A. (2022). Foreign Corporate Accountability: The Contested Institutionalization of Mandatory Due Diligence in France and Germany. Regulation & Governance, 17(4), 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12498 30) Handayani, I. G. A. K. R., Anwar, K., Hartiwiningsih, H., & Jaelani, A. K. (2024). The Recovery of State Assets Due to Bankruptcy in State-Owned Enterprises. Kne Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v8i21.14759 31) Harahap, E. S., Syahrin, A., Mulyadi, M., & Marlina, M. (2024). Penjatuhan Pidana Tambahan Terhadap Korporasi Yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Lingkungan Hidup. Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review, 3(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.56128/ljoalr.v3i1.280 32) Hartanto, & Buwono, S. W. S. (2024). Tanggung Jawab Bumn/Bumd Atas Kerugian Perusahaan (Perspektif Tindak Pidana Korupsi). Adil Jurnal Hukum, 15(1), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.33476/ajl.v15i1.3583 33) Hasnda, N. A., & Alhuda, N. S. (2025). Eksistensi Perundang-Undangan Anti Korupsi Indonesia Dalam Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Korporasi Multinasional: Analisis Teori Pilihan Rasional. Negara Hukum Membangun Hukum Untuk Keadilan Dan Kesejahteraan, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.22212/jnh.v15i2.4586 34) Herwanda, L. S. (2022). Corporate Criminal Liability for the Crime of Money Laundering With a Follow-the-Money Approach. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 05(10), 4622–4631. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i10-30 35) Heryani, F. A. (2023). Perbandingan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Brazil Dengan Di Indonesia. Humaya Jurnal Hukum Humaniora Masyarakat Dan Budaya, 3(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.33830/humaya.v3i2.5924 36) Huda, M. (2021). POLITIK HUKUM TINDAK PIDANA KORPORASI DI INDONESIA. In IBLAM LAW REVIEW (Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 45–62). Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Hukum IBLAM. https://doi.org/10.52249/ilr.v1i2.23 37) Inayah, I. (2020). Corporate Criminal Liability. JHR (Jurnal Hukum Replik), 8(2), 89. https://doi.org/10.31000/jhr.v8i2.3586 38) Indraswara, D., Mursyid, A. M., & Wulandari, C. (2024). Corporate Criminal Liability of Corruption Criminal Actions PT. Sinarmas Asset Management. The Digest Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence, 5(2), 137–184. https://doi.org/10.15294/digest.v5i2.3984 39) Irawan, A., & Wahyono, W. (2024). Restorative Justice Bagi Anak Pelaku Pidana Dalam KUHP Baru Di Indonesia. Sanskara Hukum Dan Ham, 2(03), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.58812/shh.v2i03.373 40) Irawan, D. O., Tantimin, T., & Situmeang, A. (2025). Pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia Dan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Dalam Kasus Gagal Ginjal Akut Pada Anak Di Indonesia. Jurnal Usm Law Review, 8(1), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v8i1.11297 41) Isa, S. N., Saragih, Y. M., Purba, P., Manurung, K., & Manurung, H. (2025). Tanggung Jawab Pidana Direksi Dan Korporasi Dalam Tindak Pidana Penggelapan Pajak. Journal of Law Review, 4(2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.55098/jolr.v4i2.95 42) Jatmika, B. A., & Hasya, S. M. (2023). Tindak Pidana Penyuapan Dalam Pemberian Fasilitas Kredit Bank Yang Diterapkan Melalui Pengawasan Lembaga Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Padjadjaran Law Review, 11(2), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.56895/plr.v11i2.1413 43) Jiwanti, A. (2023). Kebijakan Hukum Pidana dalam Upaya Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Lingkungan Hidup dalam Undang-undang Cipta Kerja. In JUSTISI (Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 158–174). Universitas Muhammadiyah Sorong. https://doi.org/10.33506/jurnaljustisi.v9i2.2334 44) Juniar, A. (2021). MENCARI BENTUK PEMIDANAAN TERHADAP PEMEGANG SAHAM KORPORASI DALAM TINDAK PIDANA LINGKUNGAN HIDUP. In PALAR | PAKUAN LAW REVIEW (Vol. 7, Issue 2, pp. 109–131). Universitas Pakuan. https://doi.org/10.33751/palar.v7i2.3660 45) Justiasari, I., Somawijaya, S., & Sulistyani, W. (2024). Pemulihan Kerugian Korban Tindak Pidana Penipuan Dengan Modus Investasi Ilegal. Al Qalam Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan Dan Kemasyarakatan, 18(6), 4325. Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6479 https://doi.org/10.35931/aq.v18i6.3537 46) Kabes, I., Widjajanti, E., & Anggraini, A. M. T. (2024). Reformasi Hukum Pidana Dalam Pertanggungjawaban Tindak Pidana Korporasi Membayar Upah Minimum Menggunakan Perhitungan Take Home Pay. In Journal of Law, Administration, and Social Science (Vol. 4, Issue 5, pp. 996–1005). PT WIM Solusi Prima. https://doi.org/10.54957/jolas.v4i5.954 47) Kadir, A. (2024). Hukum Tindak Pidana Khusus dalam KUHP Nasional. Minhaj Pustaka. https://doi.org/10.62083/1p2p6n75 48) Kanuri, V. K., Houston, R., & Andrews, M. (2020). Firms Behaving Badly? Investor Reactions to Corporate Social Irresponsibility. Business and Society Review, 125(1), 41–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12193 49) Karna, K. Y. M. S., & Purwani, S. P. M. (2025). Corporate Criminal Liability for Criminal Acts of Corruption: A Comparison of State Criminal Law Systems and Civil Law Systems. West Science Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(08), 1384–1388. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v3i08.2188 50) Kevin, E., & Syahputri, M. D. (2024). Kajian Mengenai Keuangan Badan Usaha Milik Negara Beserta Kerugian Dan Akibat Hukumnya. Hukum Responsif, 15(1), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.33603/responsif.v15i1.8920 51) Khoirunnisa, K. (2025). Analysis of the Elimination of Strict Liability in the Omnibus Law on Massive Deforestation in Indonesia and Its Effect on Global Warming and Climate Change. Global Insight Journal, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.52447/gij.v10i1.7913 52) Kurniawan, D. A., & Hoesein, Z. A. (2025). Rekonstruksi Pemidanaan Korporasi Dalam Kejahatan Lingkungan Hidup Sebagai Langkah Strategis Pembaharuan Hukum Nasional. Judge Jurnal Hukum, 6(03), 550–562. https://doi.org/10.54209/judge.v6i03.1566 53) Kurniawan, F. M. (2023). Optimization of Asset Recovery From the Results of Criminal Acts of Corruption Towards the Value of State Financial Losses. 365–375. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-164-7_34 54) Kurniawan, I. (2023). KRITERIA UNTUK MENENENTUKAN BENTUK-BENTUK TINDAK PIDANA DAN PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA DARI KORPORASI YANG MELAKUKAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI. In UNES Law Review (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 1285–1306). LPPM Universitas EKASAKTI. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v5i3.444 55) Kurniawan, K. D., & Esfandiari, F. (2021). Additional Criminals to Corporations as an Efforts to Create Criminal Impact With Decision. Salam Jurnal Sosial Dan Budaya Syar I, 8(6), 1713–1722. https://doi.org/10.15408/sjsbs.v8i6.23386 56) Kusumo, T. (2020). Analisis Yuridis Penerapan Konsep Lex Spesialis Sistematis Pada Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Bidang Pertambangan Dikaitkan Dengan Ajaran Perbarengan (Concursus Idealis) Dalam Hukum Pidana. Jurnal Panji Keadilan Jurnal Ilmiah Nasional Mahasiswa Hukum, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.36085/jpk.v3i2.1202 57) Listawati, L. (2021). PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA KORPORASI PADA PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG. In Justitia et Pax (Vol. 37, Issue 2). Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta. https://doi.org/10.24002/jep.v37i2.4412 58) Listiyani, N., & Nopliardy, R. (2022). Kajian Terhadap Uu Cipta Kerja Kluster Lingkungan Hidup Atas Dihapusnya Prinsip Strict Liability. Al-Ulum Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Humaniora, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.31602/alsh.v8i2.8274 59) M, A. Y., & Hardianto, S. (2024). The Role of Criminal Law in Combating Corporate Crime That Harms the Public Interest. Global, 2(11), 2616–2625. https://doi.org/10.59613/global.v2i11.364 60) Makhron, F. M. (2025). Penerapan Teori Strict Liabillity Dalam Tindak Pidana Pencemaran Lingkungan Dikaitkan Dengan Undang-Undan. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Humaniora Dan Politik, 6(1), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.38035/jihhp.v6i1.6290 61) Martin‐Ortega, O., Dehbi, F., Nelson, V., & Pillay, R. G. (2022). Towards a Business, Human Rights and the Environment Framework. Sustainability, 14(11), 6596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116596 62) Morgan, A. I., & Subekti, ’. (2020). BENTUK PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA KORPORASI MASKAPAI PENERBANGAN SIPIL TERHADAP KECELAKAAN PESAWAT TERBANG. In Recidive : Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Penanggulangan Kejahatan (Vol. 9, Issue 2, p. 153). Universitas Sebelas Maret. https://doi.org/10.20961/recidive.v9i2.47404 63) Mukhlis, R., & Sipatuhar, C. M. R. (2024). Eksistensi Korporasi Sebagai Subjek Hukum Dalam Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (Kuhp) Baru. Jurnal Hukum Das Sollen, 10(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.32520/das-sollen.v10i1.3325 64) Muslim, M. (2021). KEJAHATAN KORPORASI DAN PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA LINGKUNGAN HIDUP. In EKSEKUSI Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6480 (Vol. 3, Issue 2, p. 82). Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau. https://doi.org/10.24014/je.v3i2.13048 65) Mustafiddin, A. S., Jaya, F. A., Susiana, L., & Susanawati. (2023). Analisis Yuridis Penjatuhan Pidana Terhadap Korporasi yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya Nomor 95/Pid.Sus-TPK/2019/PN Sby). In Jurnal Kolaboratif Sains (Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 79–89). Universitas Muhammadiyah Palu. https://doi.org/10.56338/jks.v6i1.3259 66) Muttaqien, F., & Purwati, A. A. (2025). Strategi Penegakan Hukum Penggelapan Pajak Korporasi Melalui Offshore Finance Dan Tax Haven. Sentri Jurnal Riset Ilmiah, 4(8), 1361–1375. https://doi.org/10.55681/sentri.v4i8.4449 67) Nada, I. M., ilmi, B. M., Maulani, R. J. A. N., & Octafiana, R. (2025). Menelaah Kontroversi Sanksi Tindak Pidana Korupsi Antara Pasal Lama Dan Pasal Baru. Li, 1(1), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.59971/li.v1i1.42 68) Nashruddien, I. A., Mandiana, S., & Setyabudhi, J. J. (2024). Corporate Criminal Law Liability in Corruption Crimes Based on Perma RI Number 13 of 2016. Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, 5(7), 3402–3411. https://doi.org/10.59141/jist.v5i7.1229 69) Novariza, N. (2021). Pengaturan Transparansi Beneficial Ownership Di Sektor Jasa Keuangan Dalam Rangka Pencegahan Dan Pemberantasan TPPU. Pampas Journal of Criminal Law, 2(3), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.22437/pampas.v2i3.14946 70) Nurdin, A. S., Abas, M., & Guntara, D. (2022). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Berdasarkan Asas Strict Liability Terhadap Praktik Illegal Logging Di Indonesia. Justisi Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 7(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.36805/jjih.v7i2.3052 71) Nurdin, B., & Asmoro, D. (2024). Imposition of Criminal Sanctions on Corporations and/or Corporate Control Personnel Who Commit Money Laundering Crimes. Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Sains, 5(1), 1356–1363. https://doi.org/10.59141/jiss.v5i1.938 72) Panjaitan, R. U., Fernando, Z. J., & Putra, P. S. (2024). Analysis of Article 408 of the New Criminal Code: Human Rights Dynamics in Restricting Access to Contraception for Children. PJC, 16.3, 695–712. https://doi.org/10.62271/pjc.16.3.695.712 73) Paselon, A. (2021). Ius Constitutum Dan Ius Constituedum Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Kontraktor Atas Kegagalan Bangunan. Ius Civile Refleksi Penegakan Hukum Dan Keadilan, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.35308/jic.v5i2.2680 74) Pradityo, R., & Mayasari, R. T. (2021). Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Dalam Upaya Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang Yang Dilakukan Oleh Korporasi. In Supremasi Hukum : Jurnal Penelitian Hukum (Vol. 30, Issue 1, pp. 80–90). UNIB Press. https://doi.org/10.33369/jsh.30.1.80-90 75) Puanandini, D. A., Rismawati, N., & Putri, D. N. S. (2024). Tinjauan Yuridis Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Indonesia. Public Sphere: Jurnal Sosial Politik, Pemerintahan Dan Hukum, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.59818/jps.v3i3.957 76) Purba, N., Ahmad, A., & Daniel, D. (2025). Penerapan Hukum Pidana Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Yang Dilakukan Oleh Korporasi. Journal of Social and Economics Research, 7(1), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.54783/jser.v7i1.789 77) Puteri, R. P., Junaidi, M., & Arifin, Z. (2020). REORIENTASI SANKSI PIDANA DALAM PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN KORPORASI DI INDONESIA. In JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW (Vol. 3, Issue 1, p. 98). Universitas Semarang. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v3i1.2283 78) Putra, I. M. W., Gunarto, M. P., & Hasan, D. (2022). Penentuan Kesalahan Korporasi Pada Tindak Pidana Perpajakan (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Barat No.: 334/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Jkt.Brt). In Media Iuris (Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 231–258). Universitas Airlangga. https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v5i2.33369 79) Putri, A. D. A., & Siregar, M. G. J. A. (2023). Community Criminal Responsibility for Dissemination of News Containing Sara Through Social Media. Santhet (Jurnal Sejarah Pendidikan Dan Humaniora), 7(2), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.36526/santhet.v7i2.3078 80) Ragil, R. S. P., Chicha, C., Ihsan, I. a., Iqbal, I. A. F., & Annisa, A. R. (2024). Model Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana Korporasi Dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia. Puan Indonesia, 5(2), 756–763. https://doi.org/10.37296/jpi.v5i2.295 81) Rasyidi, B., Nachrawi, G., & Juwita, J. (2023). Asas Pertanggungjawaban Mutlak (Strict Liability) dalam Penuntutan Tindak Pidana Lingkungan oleh Korporasi. In HUMANIORUM (Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 41–47). ELENA (Elaborium Elevasi Indonesia). https://doi.org/10.37010/hmr.v1i02.13 82) Rusito, & Suwardi, K. (2021). Pertanggungjawaban Tindak Pidana Korporasi Dalam BidangPerpajakan. In Cakrawala Hukum: Majalah Ilmiah Fakultas Hukum Universitas Wijayakusuma (Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 25–31). Universitas Wijayakusuma Purwokerto. https://doi.org/10.51921/zdzcks15 Normative Contestation in Corporate Criminal Liability: Conflicts Between The 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code and Sectoral Legislation IJMRA, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijmra.in Page 6481 83) Sagitaria, A. (2022). Pertanggungjawaban Hukum Pemilik Manfaat (Beneficial Owner) Di Perusahaan Indonesia. MLJ, 6(2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.56338/mlj.v6i2.2421 84) Sandy, M. I. K., Ablisar, M., Mulyadi, M., & Siregar, M. (2025). Kepastian Hukum Penerapan Undang-Undang Tipikor Dalam Menjerat Pelanggar Prinsip Kehati-Hatian. Neoclassical Legal Review Journal of Law and Contemporary Issues, 3(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.32734/nlrjolci.v3i2.18326 85) Sannyasa, G. D., & Mertha, I. K. (2020). PENGATURAN TINDAK PIDANA PERJUDIAN DAN PERTANGGUNGJAWBAN PIDANA KORPORASI DALAM MICRO-TRANSACTION PADA GAME ONLINE. In Kertha Semaya : Journal Ilmu Hukum (Vol. 8, Issue 9, p. 1467). Universitas Udayana. https://doi.org/10.24843/ks.2020.v08.i09.p14 86) Saputra, A. (2022). KEBIJAKAN HUKUM PIDANA TERHADAP PERLINDUNGAN KORBAN DALAM TINDAK PIDANA LINGKUNGAN HIDUP OLEH KORPORASI. In At-Tanwir Law Review (Vol. 2, Issue 1, p. 1). Universitas Muhammadiyah Gorontalo. https://doi.org/10.31314/atlarev.v2i1.1848 87) Saputra, G. R., & Sewu, P. L. S. (2023). Corporate Liability and Law Enforcement for Drivers for Malfunction Errors in the Autopilot Feature in Electric Vehicles. Jurnal Hukum Sehasen, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.37676/jhs.v9i2.4978 88) Saputra, T. D., Faisal, F., & Haryadi, D. (2023). Restorative Justice Dalam Proses Penuntutan Terhadap Perkara Pencurian Di Kejaksaan Negeri Pangkalpinang. Reformasi Hukum, 27(3), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.46257/jrh.v27i3.710 89) Setiawan, W., & Said, Y. M. (2025). PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN DAN DASAR PENGHAPUSAN PIDANA KORPORASI DI INDONESIA DITINJAU BERDASARKAN KUHP 2023. In FOCUS (Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 75–91). ELENA (Elaborium Elevasi Indonesia). https://doi.org/10.37010/fcs.v6i1.1889 90) Shamil, M. M., Shaikh, J. M., Ho, P., & Krishnan, A. (2022). External Pressures, Managerial Motive and Corporate Sustainability Strategy: Evidence From a Developing Economy. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 18. https://doi.org/10.17576/ajag-2022-18-02 91) Sibero, S. M. T., Kristiawanto, K., & Ismed, M. (2024). Criminal Law Enforcement in Efforts to Eradicate Money Laundering in Indonesia. Policy Law Notary and Regulatory Issues (Polri), 3(4), 467–471. https://doi.org/10.55047/polri.v3i4.1461 92) Sinaga, H. (2021). PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM PIDANA BAGI KORBAN TINDAK PIDANA LINGKUNGAN DI INDONESIA. In IBLAM LAW REVIEW (Vol. 1, Issue 3, pp. 178–186). Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Hukum IBLAM. https://doi.org/10.52249/ilr.v1i3.257 93) Siregar, I., Ismail, T., Taqi, M., & Soleha, N. (2024). ESG’s Future on Sustainability Reporting: Bibliometric Analysis. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.30-10-2023.2343098 94) Suartha, I. D. M., & Ivory, J. (2024). Corporate Crime Liability: Beyond Rule Reform on Indonesia Criminal Policy. FJL, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.62795/fjl.v4i2.281 95) Subarsyah, T. (2020). PENEGAKAN HUKUM PIDANA DALAM MENANGGULANGI TINDAK PIDANA PENCEMARAN LINGKUNGAN SUNGAI CITARUM MELALUI PENDEKATAN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. In Jurnal Soshum Insentif (Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 160–170). Lembaga Layanan Pendidikan Wilayah IV. https://doi.org/10.36787/jsi.v3i2.264 96) Sulestiyono, D. (2020). Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Membedakan Persepsi Mahasiswa Tentang Corporate Social Responsibility (Studi Empiris Pada Universitas Diponegoro). Jurnal Akuntansi Keuangan Dan Bisnis, 13(2), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.35143/jakb.v13i2.3745 97) Suparman, M. I., & Retnaningrum, D. H. (2023). Accountability for Corporate Crime in the Law of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 1 of 2023 Concerning the Book of Criminal Law. 982–991. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476164-7_91 98) Torodji, R., Hartiwiningsih, H., Handayani, I. G. A. K. R., & Nur, M. (2023). The Role of the Corporate Penalty System on Environmental Regulation. Journal of Human Rights Culture and Legal System, 3(3), 600–624. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v3i3.179 99) Usman, K. D. (2025). Law Enforcement Against Criminal Acts Committed by Curators in the Context of Their Independence in Administering Debtors Assets During PKPU and Bankruptcy Proceedings. Fortiori Law Journal, 5(01), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.47200/flj.v5i01.3056 100) Utami, E. R., & Barokah, Z. (2024). The Determinants of Corporate Anti-Corruption Disclosures: Evidence From Construction Companies in the Asia-Pacific. Corporate Governance, 24(6), 1414–1441. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-042023-0152 101) Verdinan, V., & Eddy, T. (2024). Pembakaran Lahan Dalam Regulasi Lingkungan Hidup. Widya Yuridika, 7(2), 485–496.