Regulatory Model and Minimum Safeguards for Conditional Prosecution in Corruption Cases

Authors

  • Angga Rizky Bagaskoro Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia
  • Prija Djatmika Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia
  • Faizin Sulistio Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v9i2.4655

Keywords:

Anti-corruption;, Deferred prosecution;, Legal reform;, Prosecutorial discretion;, Restorative justice;

Abstract

The enactment of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code has provided a legal basis for deferred prosecution agreements. However, their application in corruption cases still raises questions concerning the limits and minimum safeguards required to prevent prosecutorial discretion from developing into selective leniency. This article examines the juridical implications of conditional prosecution in corruption cases and formulates a regulatory model and minimum safeguards compatible with Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches by examining the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Singapore. The findings show that the recognition of deferred prosecution agreements must be accompanied by rules that limit the cases eligible for this mechanism and ensure accountability in its implementation. The proposed model places the procedural basis within criminal procedure law, while corruption-specific safeguards are regulated through the anti-corruption regime and technical prosecutorial guidelines. The novelty of this study lies in the formulation of operational minimum safeguards, including eligibility criteria and mandatory exclusions, verified obligations for the recovery of state losses and compliance, judicial validation, transparency and monitoring, as well as legal consequences for breach of the agreement.

References

Abuthalib, Cut Nangrie Sari, Dian Ekawaty Ismail, and Ahmad. ‘Plea Bargaining Dalam Bayang-Bayang Keadilan: Antara Efisiensi Penegakan Hukum Dan Degradasi Nilai Kepastian Hukum’. Al-Zayn : Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum 4, no. 1 (January 2026): 1130–46. https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v4i1.3201.

Antari, Putu Eva Ditayani, and I. Kadek Budiadinata Satriatama Adnyana. ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreement Dalam Pemidanaan Tindak Pidana Korupsi’. Fundamental: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 12, no. 1 (May 2023): 182–98. https://doi.org/10.34304/jf.v12i1.96.

Bu, Qingxiu. ‘The Viability of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) in the UK: The Impact on Global Anti-Bribery Compliance’. European Business Organization Law Review 22, no. 1 (March 2021): 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-021-00203-5.

Burrohim, Habi, I. Gede Widhiana Suarda, and Ainul Azizah. ‘Pengembalian Kerugian Keuangan Negara Melalui Perjanjian Penundaan Penuntutan Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Oleh Korporasi’. JURNAL RECHTENS 11, no. 1 (June 2022): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.56013/rechtens.v11i1.1137.

Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. X Seminario Regional de Política Fiscal: Compendio de Documentos. Santiago de Chile: Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), 1998. https://repositorio.cepal.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/41e184bd-c91d-4240-8964-5cf421add9e9/content.

Davis, Frederick T. ‘Judicial Review of Deferred Prosecution Agreements: A Comparative Study’. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (New York), 2012. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5daf8b1ab45413657badbc03/t/62893e086c274f65e1db41ba/1653161481142/Judicial+Review+of+Deferred+Prosecution+Agreements+A+Comparative+Study+%28print%29.pdf.

Efendi, Jonaedi, and Johnny Ibrahim. Metode Penelitian Hukum: Normatif dan Empiris. Jakarta, Indonesia: Prenada Media, 2018.

Effendi, Tolib, and Fendi Setyawan. ‘Kemandirian Jaksa dalam Proses Plea Agreement di Negara-Negara dengan Indeks Persepsi Korupsi Rendah (Perbandingan Pelaksanaan di Indonesia, Argentina dan Filipina)’. INICIO LEGIS 6, no. 1 (June 2025): 39–55. https://doi.org/10.21107/il.v6i1.30187.

Firmansyah, Alfajri. ‘Tinjauan Hukum Kewenangan Jaksa Dalam Pemeriksaan Tambahan Menurut Asas Dominus Litis Berdasarkan Kuhap’. Jurnal Hukum Jurisdictie 2, no. 1 (February 2020): 54–80. https://doi.org/10.34005/jhj.v2i1.19.

Fragale, Mauro, and Valentina Grilli. ‘Impunity for Sale: Are Deferred Prosecution Agreements a Way for Companies to Evade Liability?’ Trento Student Law Review 6, no. 1 (May 2024): 41–70. https://doi.org/10.15168/tslr.v6i1.2961.

Hawley, Susan, Colin King, and Nicholas Lord. ‘Justice for Whom? The Need for a Principled Approach to Deferred Prosecution Agreements in England and Wales’. In Negotiated Settlements in Bribery Cases, edited by Tina Søreide and Abiola Makinwa, 309–46. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788970419.00022.

Lord, Nicholas. ‘Prosecution Deferred, Prosecution Exempt: On the Interests of (In)Justice in the Non-Trial Resolution of Transnational Corporate Bribery’. The British Journal of Criminology 63, no. 4 (July 2023): 848–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac059.

Nuarta, I. Nengah, and Mochamad Sukedi. ‘Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Oleh Korporasi Dengan Konsep Deferred Prosecution Agreement’. KERTHA WICAKSANA 19, no. 2 (September 2025): 142–50. https://doi.org/10.22225/kw.19.2.2025.142-150.

Nugraha, Yodi. ‘Optimalisasi Asas Oportunitas Pada Kewenangan Jaksa Guna Meminimalisir Dampak Primum Remedium Dalam Pemidanaan’. Veritas et Justitia 6, no. 1 (June 2020): 213–36. https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.v6i1.3882.

Pravidjayanto, Rafi, Neha Hifa Haq, and Muhammad Aqil Alfatoni. ‘Pemidanaan Korupsi Korporasi Melalui Konstruksi Model Deffered Prosecution Agreement Berbasis Keadilan Sosial Di Indonesia’. Jurnal Yuridis 12, no. 1 (November 2025): 149–67. https://doi.org/10.35586/jyur.v12i1.10751.

Soekanto, Soerjono. Pengantar penelitian hukum. Penerbit Universitas Indonesia (UI-Press), 2006.

Songsatit, Nochaya, and Tidarat Sinlapapiromsuk. ‘The Implementation of Deferred Prosecution Agreements in the Thai Legal System: Challenges and Prospects’. Eau Heritage Journal Social Science and Humanities (Online) 16, no. 1 (February 2026): 1–8.

Yanlua, Siti Zainab, Fauzia Rahawarin, and Muhammad Nasir Prawira. ‘Dinamika Kewenangan Jaksa: Peran Dalam Penuntutan Saat Ini Dan Arah Perubahan Dalam Ruu Kuhap’. Jurnal Al-Ahkam: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam 7, no. 1 (March 2025): 14–23. https://doi.org/10.47435/al-ahkam.v7i1.3637.

Downloads

Published

2025-09-30

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2025): 2025

Section

Full Article

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Angga Rizky Bagaskoro, Prija Djatmika, Faizin Sulistio

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.