The urgency of law reforms on economic crimes in Indonesia

Abstract The Indonesia’s economy has experienced rapid and massive development. Even after its contraction due to the pandemic in 2020, the economic growth of Indonesia is still highly significant. Digital transactions play an important role in the economic development. However, the economic growth may potentially lead to considerable number of economic crimes. To deal with them, the penal policy on economic crimes has not been developed according to the growth. The disparity among criminal provisions in economic sectors results in legal uncertainty in the enforcement of economic crimes. This research aims to shed a light on the current penal policy on economic crimes and the urgency of the reform on the economic criminal law. It is concluded that the Economic Crimes Law 1955 is no longer relevant to eradicate economic crimes in Indonesia. Furthermore, Indonesia Penal Code is far left behind by the current economic development. Therefore, a far-reaching reform is necessary. The partial reform of economic criminal law through various legislations has resulted in the legal uncertainty. For instance, they embrace different corporate criminal liability and sentencing principles. Hence, it is important to formulate a law on the principles of economic criminal law applying to all economic crimes.


Background
In the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, Indonesia Economy was contracted by 1% (Rahmat Reksa Samudra and Diahhadi Setyonalur, 2021). Nevertheless, Indonesia Economy sucessfully recovered in 2021 with 3.7 percent expansion (The World Bank, 2021). The percentage shows that the global economy grew rapidly. The number of e-commerce in Indonesia increased dramatically, in terms of the providers, sellers, and users. For example, Bukalapak was ranked third after Shopee and Tokopedia as it was visited by 35 million users on average every month (Devita, 2020). On the other hand, 66 millions and 95 million users visit Tokopedia and Shopee on a monthly basis (Devita, 2020). It shows a vibrant economic activity. In addition, the number of Indonesian investors on the stock market rose by 44% from 2020 to June 2021, in which there were 5,597,760 investors on the stock exchange (KSEI, 2020).
Nevertheless, economic crimes also rose quite significantly, in terms of their modus operandi and quantity. The economic increase has great influence on the number of economic crimes (Petrasheva et al., 2017, p. 209). From the perspective of the legal aspect, particularly economic criminal law, the development of technology and economy affects the development of economic crimes (Fadri, 2018, p. 435). Referring to the research conducted by the Swedish National Central Bureau of Statistics in 2012-2016, the number of crimes went up from 134 out of 100,000 people in 2012 to 140 in 2016 due to economic factors (Fadri, 2018, p. 403). Carl Levin estimates that 500 billion-1 trillion US dollars is allegedly obtained as proceed of crimes and transferred internationally on an annual basis and the half of it is allegedly transferred to the United States (Sjahdeini, 2007, p. 11).
Beside the consequence in microeconomy perspective, the development of technology and modus operandi also causes economic crimes to be more massive in terms of their impacts and consequences in the macroeconomy context. For example, theft and fraud which are conventional crimes to the prejudice of personal victims are now becoming sophisticated crimes which have massive victims. For instance, First Travel Cases in Indonesia which has business in religious travels, they did fraud to more than 1000 victims with the cost 980 billion rupiahs (Supreme Court Verdict Number 3096/K/Pid.Sus/2018). Another example, Indra Kesuma a.k.a Indra Kenz manipulate thousands of investors to invest in illegal trading system which the total cost of crime is 83 billion Rupiah (Tangerang District Court Decision Number 1240/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Tng). Both cases show how conventional crime are developed in line with the economic and technology development. Both cases had been indicted with Indonesian Penal Code (hereinafter is called "KUHP").
KUHP is the legacy of the Dutch from Wet Book van Straftrecht vor Nederlands Indie which is in force in the Dutch East Indies since 1918 (Hiariej, 2015, p. 27). Even though they were also accused by money laundering, the primary article was the article of fraud (Supreme Court Verdict Number 3096/K/Pid.Sus/2018).
Those economic crime problems are the examples of the result by unclear economic crime policy. Barda Nawawi Arief, citing from Robert P. Mayer and Ernest Greenwood, defines "policy" as a decision on the most effective and efficient method of achieving a collective goal (Arief & Arief, 1998, p. 59). However, in dealing with economic crimes, the penal policy in Indonesia is no longer relevant and has no clear direction.
A codified law expected to eradicate economic crimes is deemed not relevant any longer. The effort to eradicate economic crimes in Indonesia comprehensively has been made since 1955 through Emergency Law Number 7 of 1955 on Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "UU TPE"). UU TPE was made to deal with the economic issues at that time (Yoserwan, 2014, p. 123), inspired by Wet op de Economische Delicten, a codification of economic criminal law in the Netherlands at that time (Yoserwan, 2014, p. 123). There, all crimes related to economy were punishable according to the codification (Yoserwan, 2014, p. 124). UU TPE contains various substantive and procedural criminal provisions, including provisions of customs and excises, exports and imports, and even banking. Nevertheless, subsequently, other laws on economic crimes were made, such as the Customs Law, Trade Law, and Banking Law. Therefore, UU TPE is further left behind and cannot be enforced. In other words, the Indonesian penal policy on economic crimes has no clear aim and cannot deal with existing economic crimes in this country (Yoserwan, 2014, p. 124).
In the First Travel scandal, the president director was charged with fraud and money laundering. A corporation cannot be held liable for fraud, but it can in money laundering. As KUHP and Law Number 8 of 2010 on Money Laundering (UU TPPU) are not in line, the law enforcers were not certain of prosecuting First Travel as a corporation. As a result, it was merely considered crimes for corporation, instead of crimes by corporation. It can be said that corporate criminal liability cannot be applied to First Travel, so that financial tracking cannot conducted comprehensively. This is only an example of the disparity among legislations on economic crimes in Indonesia.
Furthermore, there has been no system which can prevent the economic crime. Robert says that the problem in economic crimes is the focus on sentencing, instead of prevention of economic crimes (Cooter & Ulen, 2004, p. 484). Hence, penal policy is necessary to deal with economic crimes in the future. Hence, the questions in this research are how the existing penal policy has been in dealing with economic crimes and what can be done to reform it in response to the development of economic crimes.

Penal policy on economic crimes
There are several terminologies referring to the penal policy, such as "penal policy", "criminal law policy", or "strafrechtspolitiek" (Arief, 2008, p. 24). Their definitions can be explained from the perspectives of legal policy and criminal policy (Arief, 2008, p. 24). In conjunction with it, Sudarto says that legal policy can be defined as attempts to make viable regulations based on particular conditions and situations in a particular time (Sudarto, 2007, p. 151). Additionally, he states that legal policy constitutes as state policy through its authorized bodies to issue desired regulations expected to be able to express community's values and to achieve them (Sudarto, 1983, p. 20). Specifically, Sudarto says that penal policy involves choosing the best laws and regulations, in terms of justice and usefulness (Sudarto, 1983, p. 153). It attempts to make laws and regulations based on the conditions and situations in a particular time and in the future (Sudarto, 1983, p. 93). The penal reform is a substantial part of the criminal policy (Wijaya et al., 2019).
Related to the definition of penal policy, Marc Ancel, as cited by Barda Nawawi Arief, defines "penal policy" as a science and art with a practical goal to formulate better positive law and to guide not only lawmakers but also courts which enforce laws and the executors of their verdicts (Arief, 2008, p. 21). Based on the definition of "penal policy", Barda Nawawi Arief concludes that if penal policy is considered a part of legal policy, it means that penal policy is how to make and formulate viable laws and regulations on crimes (Arief, 2008, p. 21). To establish the Penal Policy, it is influenced by two substantial factors, the practices of criminal law enforcement and the comparative with other countries (Lacey et al. 2018, p. 5).
It can be concluded that penal policy is the process to establish laws and regulations in the field of criminal law to deal with crimes. When it comes to penal policy on economic crimes, the definition of economic criminal law needs to be explained. According to Andi Hamzah, economic criminal law is a part of criminal law in the realm of economy, so it can be said that regulations on criminal law in the field of economy are classified into economic criminal law (Hamzah, 1991, p. 23). For the sake of the state's economic policy and interest, criminal law is made to protect them (Fadri, 2018, pp. 442-443). Therefore, to explain economic criminal law, it is necessary to explain how thamzahe existing state policy in dealing with economic crimes is.
In conducting study on economic criminal law, it is necessary to look at the development of penal policy by analyzing the sources of economic criminal law in Indonesia. Based on the sources, Indonesian criminal law is divided into KUHP and non-KUHP (Hiariej, 2015). The non-KUHP criminal law is still divided into penal law and administrative penal law.
Prior to discussing laws on economic crimes, the definition of economic crimes needs to be explained. There is no precise and clear definition of economic crimes, both at the national and international levels (Larsson, 2018, p. 123). At the international level, there have been several suggestions, e.g., white-collar crimes, commercial crimes, business crimes, corporate crimes, and economic crimes (Larsson, 2018, p. 123). Even, there is also a terminology deemed as the root of economic crimes, i.e. financial abuse, a part of which is Financial Crime. However, the terminology of financial abuse is not so precise and broad enough (International Monetary Fund, 2001, p. 3).
Financial Abuse is a broad definition which encompasses not only illegal activities having impacts on the financial system but also other activities related to tax and other economic regulations (International Monetary Fund, 2001, p. 3). On the other hand, financial crime constitutes a part of financial abuse which is defined as crimes resulting in economic loss (International Monetary Fund, 2001, p. 3).
The definition of financial crimes is not much different from that of economic crimes according to Barda Nawawi Arief where economic crimes are committed to seek economic gain (Muladi & Arief, 1992, p. 0.152). In Indonesia, there is a broad definition of economic crimes. The stipulation about economic crimes can be found in Emergency Law Number 7 of 1955 on Economic Crimes (UU Tindak Pidana Ekonomi). Broadly speaking, it is said by Barda Nawawi that economic crimes also encompass all crimes which are not criminalized by UU TPE, committed to seek economic gain and having effects on economy (Muladi, 1992, p. 152).
According to Iza Fadri, economic crimes are directed against the development of a society; either it is a modern society or developing society, so that this range of crimes is very broad and can be extraterritorial (Fadri, 2018, p. 437). Moreover, economic crimes are perpetrated to seek economic gain and have detrimental impacts on economic activities (Fadri, 2018, p. 437). Then, Iza adds that economic crimes are illegally committed by those in the economic activities (Fadri, 2018, p. 438).
Compared to other crimes, economic crimes have characteristics. The development of economic crimes heavily depends on the economic system and development of a society. Hence, economic crimes are dependent on the economic system of a country in which they are committed (Supriyanta, 2007, p. 42). Muladi also stresses that economic crimes are a part of the economic law in a nation (Supriyanta, 2007, p. 42).
Bengt Larsson, an economic criminal law expert from Sweden, also emphasizes the seven aspects of economic crimes, i.e.: (1) The actor (white collar crime or corporate crime); (2) The motive (economic profit); (3) The context (taking advantage of the transactional and organizational forms of the economic sphere); (4) The character of the act (a breach of trust); (5) Consequences (an economic injury); (Larsson, 2018, p. 124) (6) The legislation (the laws against which they are perpetrated); and (7) Expertise (special knowledge of economic crimes).
Marjono Reksodiputro, as cited by Eddy OS Hiariej in his book "Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana", states that corporate crimes are related to white collar crime (WCC) (Hiariej, 2015, p. 195). The term was coined by Edwin Hardin Sutherland in his speech on 27 December 1939 at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society in Philadelphia and his book White Collar Crime ten years later. It is used to distinguish street crime and crime perpetrated by men of respectability and high social status (Wisburd et al., 2004, p. 1).
Beside the concept of WCC, Setiyono differentiates several terms for corporate crimes, i.e. crimes for corporations, crimes against corporations, and criminal corporations (Setiyono, 2005, p. 1). Crimes for corporations are committed by individuals and benefit the corporation. On the other hand, crimes against corporations inflict loss on a corporation. Lastly, criminal corporations are perpetrated by the companies themselves (Setiyono, 2005, p. 1).
In terms of those terms above, it can be said that they are all committed against economic law. Andi Hamzah stresses that the provisions of criminal law on economy can be categorized into economic criminal law (Hamzah, 1991, p. 23). Likewise, Iza Fadri asserts that economic criminal law deals with crimes and offenses to create order in economy (Fadri, 2018, p. 442). Currently, TPE has a relatively new meaning, i.e. each act violating laws and regulations of economy and finance and contains criminal sanctions (Prasetyo, 2020, p. 206). Thus, it can be concluded that economic crimes are driven by economic motives and have impacts on economy.
In KUHP, economic crimes are categorized into crimes against property in Article 486 of KUHP. The article classifies forgery and crimes against property into one category. The classification is related to recidivism common to various chapters. Nonetheless, both are directed against the victim's property. These encompass theft, fraud, embezzlement, forgery, and so forth. Trafficking, are also related to economy, but they deal more with human exploitation. As a consequence, they are not discussed.
Besides, there are some regulations of administrative penal law concerning economy, for example, the Banking Law, Insurance Law, Capital Market Law, etc, which were made to eradicate financial crimes. In terms of intellectual property rights, there are the Copyright Law, Trademark Law, Patent Law, and Trade Secrets Law. In 2020, Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation amended 96 laws on economy, such as manpower, mining, forestry, environment, and forest destruction. As a consequence, it is necessary to shed a light on the legal policy on economic crimes in Indonesia.

The criminal code
The Indonesian Criminal Code is the legacy of the Dutch East Indies (Wet Boek van Straftrecht vor Nederlands Indie) since 1918 (Hiariej, 2015). It protects various legal interests against crimes and misdemeanors. In terms of the classification of crimes, Article 486 of KUHP stipulates crimes against property and forgery. The article contains sanctions on recidivism common to various chapters (Kanter & Sianturi, 2002), including crimes against property.
Van Bemmelen, as cited by Kenter, says that crimes against property cannot be explained in a single term as each of them has different characteristics (Kanter & Sianturi, 2002). In KUHP, there are several classifications of crimes against property: theft (diefstal), extortion (afpersing), blackmail (afdreiging), embezzlement (ferduisteirng), fraud (bedrog) and receiving stolen property (Yahya, 1997, p. 41). They all have particular characteristics and can exclude each other, such as theft and embezzlement which are different in terms of how the property is obtained; in theft, it is unlawful, while in embezzlement, it is lawful.
However, KUHP does not specifically distinguish crimes against property from crimes against other legal interests. As a consequence, the penal policy, when it comes to the economic crimes in KUHP, has no significant effect on penal policy on economic crimes. Overall, the provisions for economic crimes are still valid in Indonesia.
Nonetheless, Article 82 of KUHP is closely related to crimes inflicting loss. It provides "The right to prosecute in case of misdemeanors on which no other basic punishment is imposed than fine shall lapse by voluntary payment of the maximum of the fine, and of the costs if prosecution has already taken place, by authorization of the official designated thereto by general regulations within the terms to be determined by him." The payment constitutes one of the particular features of economic crimes. However, the stipulation cannot be applied to all crimes against property as they shall not only be fine, but also imprisonment. Consequently, it can be concluded that there is no special provision for crimes against property in KUHP.

The law number 7 of 1955 of economic crimes
The codification of economic crimes was started through Emergency Law Number 7 of 1955 on Economic Crimes (UU TPE). The law is the Indonesian adaptation of the codification of economic crimes in the Netherlands five years before by means of Wet op de Economische Delicten (Yoserwan, 2014) to deal with the development of the economic crimes faced by the Dutch (Abidinfarid & hamzah, 2006, p. 1). How economic crimes developed also triggered Indonesia to codify economic crimes.
According to the elucidation of UU TPE, crimes related to the context of economy was started to be known in 1941 so that they were considered "bedrijfsrisico" or "business risk". It means that their impacts were detrimental to the Indonesian economy at that time, but the law enforcement officers were not sufficiently competent to deal with economic crimes and their impacts. Hence, UU TPE with substantive and procedural law on economic crimes is crucially necessary.
UU TPE is related to six economic crimes, i.e.: monitored goods delicts, prijsbehersing (price management), stockpiling, rice regulation, mandatory rice milling, and devisen or foreign exchange (Prasetyo, 2020, p. 206). The law specifically stipulates those crimes, such as cumulative sentences, 1 corporate criminal liability, 2 extended national jurisdiction, 3 and other relevant principles. Nevertheless, UU TPE losses its relevance to dealing with economic crimes because the six economic crime in UU TPE has been regulated in other regulations. For instance, the foreign exchange offenses in Deviezen Ordonnantie 1940 as the ground of the foreign exchange delict in UU TPE was repealed by Law Number 32 of 1964 on Foreign Exchange. 4 The law was revoked by Law Number 24 of 1999 on Foreign Exchange and Exchange Rates with its new criminal provisions 5 without imprisonment. 6 Meanwhile, Article 6 point of UU TPE prescribes imprisonment. 7 This reform to foreign exchange law made the implementation of UU TPE in the typology of foreign exchange.
In terms of smuggling, UU TPE is far left behind by the development of customs law which stipulates exports and imports. Initially, smuggling was stipulated by Presidential Decree Number 73 of 1967. According to this decree, smuggling was related to exports or imports (Yoserwan, 2014). However, the definition of smuggling in Presidential Decree 73/1967 did not include interisland smuggling (Nizmi, 2017). Subsequently, Law Number 10 of 1995 was formulated and amended by Law Number 17 of 2006 on Customs. The law comprehensively contains criminal provisions of customs. Thus, the criminal provisions have significantly been changed (Prasetyo, 2020, p. 208). By this change of legal policy, UU TPE is not relevant to smuggling any longer.
Moreover, the regulations of monitored goods, rice stockpiling, price management, and rice milling in UU TPE become irrelevant due to several reforms to the food sector. UU TPE provides typology for food. In 1962, Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 8 of 1962 (Perppu 8/1962) was issued to repeal a number of laws in UU TPE. The third consideration of Perppu 8/1962 states "that "Export Crisis Law 1932", "Monitored Goods Law 1948", "Rice Law 1948", and Stockpiling Law 1951", are no longer relevant." In its criminal provisions, Perppu 8/1962 still referred to the classification of "economic crimes". Then, Law Number 7 of 1992 on Food was formulated. This law did not repeal Perppu 8/1962, but the transitional provision states "All existing statutory rules and regulations of food shall remain in force to the extent no new ones are provided according to this law." Nevertheless, Articles 55-59 of the law stipulated more specifically than Perppu and UU TPE. Subsequently, Law Number 18 of 2012 on Food was formulated, revoking Law Number 7 of 1996, also prescribing provisions to criminalize rice stockpiling and other food crimes. 8 This law criminalizes rice stockpiling and rice smuggling too. Hence, UU TPE becomes more irrelevant. This legal reform repealed and amended the provisions of four economic crimes in UU TPE, i.e. monitored goods, rice management, rice stockpiling, and rice milling.
All in all, UU TPE is no longer relevant to deal with the current phenomenon of economic crimes due to the development of other laws (Prasetyo, 2020, p. 211). The procedural provisions in UU TPE are closely related to the irrelevant substantive provisions. In other words, UU TPE is already "dead".
Initially, UU TPE was made to harmonize several laws on economic crimes. Nonetheless, then the policy makers formulated provisions of economic crimes beside UU TPE, such as customs, banking, corruption, taxation, and so forth. In the Netherlands, after the revision of the economic crimes law, Economics Delicten Act was made to regulate various economic crimes, including corruption, money laundering, banking crimes, and etc. (Library of Congress, Netherland, 2019).
To date, Indonesia has not followed the same route. Several laws on economy contain their own criminal provisions which are inconsistent with each other (Yoserwan, 2014). In practice, the enforcement depends on each law chosen, leading to a number of problems.

Laws on Economy
Indriyanto Seno Adji defines special penal laws as a part of intra-special criminal law. Penal laws besides KUHP which can be classified into the special criminal law are, for example, Corruption

Criminal provisions
The most fundamental problem of the criminal provisions in administrative penal law is the inconsistency among criminal provisions. Eddy OS Hiariej says that the formulation of criminal sanctions in each formulation of delict is related to some concepts of strafmaat or the harshness of sanctions. First, it is distinguished from basic punishments (Hiariej, 2015). KUHP recognizes alternative sentences where an act shall only be punished by one basic punishment. However, the other legislation also recognizes cumulative sentences and cumulative-alternative sentences. The cumulative punishment means in one act, judge can sentence more than one basic punishment. For instance, the criminal sanctions in the Corruption Law consist of imprisonment and fine. 9 In other words, they are cumulative. On the other hand, the Excises Law recognizes alternative-cumulative sentences by using "and/or". This provision can also be found in the legislation on intellectual property rights, e.g., the Copyright Law. So with all various laws, there are distinctions on the punishment system. This may raise the problem in the law enforcement.
Second¸ in terms of strafmaat, there are three formulations of sentences, i.e. indefinite sentences, intermedinite sentences, and definite sentences. KUHP recognizes intermedinite sentences, i.e. special maximum imprisonment without minimum imprisonment. For example, Article 338 on manslaughter stipulates a maximum imprisonment of 15 years. In addition, indefinite sentences are recognized in other criminal provisions with maximum and minimum imprisonment (Hiariej, 2015). It can be found in Article 2 of the Corruption Law, which stipulates a minimum imprisonment of 4 years and maximum imprisonment of 20 years. In practice, judges have to impose more than 4 years of imprisonment, different from Article 338 of KUHP, which enables judges to impose more than one day of imprisonment as the minimum imprisonment in KUHP.
Therefore, problems will emerge if there is a conjunction of punishable acts, such as the First Travel case in which the defendants were charged with fraud (Article 378 of KUHP) and money laundering (Article 3 of UU TPPU). Article 378 of KUHP contains an alternative sentence, as opposed to the cumulative one in Article 3 of UU TPPU. Eventually, the judges imposed cumulative sentences pursuant to UU TPPU (Vide Depok District Court Verdict Number 83/Pid.B/2018/PN.Dpk). The Depok District Court sentenced Andika Surachman to 20 years of imprisonment and Anniesa Hasibuan to 18 years of imprisonment. In addition, the panel of judges ordered to pay Rp 10 billion or serve additional eight months in prison if they fail to pay the fine. The verdict deviates from Article 65 of KUHP on the conjunction of punishable acts in which one punishment shall be imposed. Nonetheless, the verdict contained two punishments, imprisonment and fine. Even though it is stipulated in UU TPPU, but it is the conjunction of acts according to KUHP dan UU TPPU. It shall be known that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his or her guilt remain (in dubio pro reo). The ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the more lenient punishment. 10 But, in the case, it is not for the defendant, but in the favor of the state. This needs to be reformed. The bill of penal code has formulated that the criminal provision shall be harmonized in all administrative penal laws.

Corporate criminal liability
According to Eddy O.S. Hiariej, lawmakers thought that only humans (or individuals) can be subjects of law committing a crime as shown by the history of the formulation of Article 59 of KUHP, particularly how delicts were formulated using the phrase "hij die", which means "any person" (Hiariej, 2015). Moreover, according to Mardjono Reksodiputro, the provision of the article is exactly the same as that of Article 51 of the Dutch Criminal Code 1886 (Reksodiputro, 2014).
The controversy of corporate criminal liability among criminal law experts are still occurring (Sjahdeni, 2017, p. 68). In criminal law, corporations are not subjects of law. Schaffmeister says, as cited by Muladi and Dwidja Priyatno, there are three developments of corporations as subjects of law (Muladi & Priyatno, 1991, p. 198). First, if an offense is perpetrated within a corporation, it is deemed to be committed by its directors. Furthermore, Muladi and Dwidja Priyatno, citing Enschede and Heijder, state that the first stage can be seen in the making of the Dutch Criminal Code 1881, in contrast to the principle of universitas delinquere non potest (legal entities cannot commit criminal acts). Second, a crime is deemed to be perpetrated by corporations, but the officers shall be held liable. Third, subsequent to the World War II, corporations are deemed to be able to commit offenses and be held liable (Muladi & Priyatno, 1991, p. 34). According to Satjipto Rahardjo, corporate criminal liability is related to social modernization. Likewise, Setiyono, as cited by Eddy O.S. Hiariej, is of the opinion that corporations can be held criminally liable as they frequently benefit from offenses (Hiariej, 2015, p. 200 (Muladi & Priyatno, 1991, p. 7). Later, in practice, problems emerged due to other legislation viewing that corporations can commit crimes. This is stipulated by Article 103 of KUHP, which says that "The provisions of the first eight Chapters of this Book shall also apply to facts on which punishment is imposed by other statutory provisions, unless determined otherwise by statute" (Muladi, Sulistyani, 2021, p. 41).
Nevertheless, provisions of economic crimes have different parameters. Supriyadi emphasizes that there are differences in provisions of corporate liability (Supriyadi, 2016(Supriyadi, , p. 1108). Supriyadi conducted research on administrative penal laws (Supriyadi, 2016(Supriyadi, , p. 1094 (Supriyadi, 2016(Supriyadi, , p. 1094." It is found that only those four administrative penal laws stipulate how corporate has criminal liability. The other laws merely contain criminal sanctions on corporation without clear qualification. This problem also has also emerged in intra-special criminal legislation, such as the Corruption Law and Money Laundering Law. Article 20 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Law stresses that "In the event that corruption is committed by or on behalf of a corporation, prosecution and sentencing may be conducted against the corporation". Then, the other parameter is set in Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Corruption Law that "Corruption committed by a corporation are an action by persons either in the context of a working relationship or other relationships, undertaken within the aforementioned corporation". It is different from Article 6 paragraph (2) of UU TPPU that TPPU is committed by corporations if it is: Hence, the Bill of Penal Code, which is being discussed, contains provisions of corporate criminal liability. Article 45 paragraph (1) of The Bill stipulates corporations as offenders. Article 46 and Article 47 of The Bill of Penal Code qualifies the conditions where corporations commit crimes in KUHP. The provisions will be solutions to the problem. However, there are still differences in the principles of economic criminal law.
The problems above will cause inconsistent enforcement of economic criminal law, even legal uncertainty. With UU TPE and inconsistenst economic criminal outside KUHP, the current penal policy of economic criminal law in Indonesia tends to be conflict with each other. Therefore, reform to economic criminal law is necessary.

Reform to economic criminal law
Owing to the problems abovementioned, it is necessary to reform economic criminal law. One of the aims of the reform is to harmonize various global and multidimensional crimes (Academic paper of the Bill of Penal Code, 2015). Therefore, there will be legal certainty in terms of law enforcement in several sectors. For instance, in 2013 the Netherlands reformed Wet op Economics Delicten which was made in 1950. It encompassed all ecoseveraluch as corruption and money laundering (Library of Congress (Netherland), 2019).
The regulations in the Netherlands also stipulate the coherence of corporate criminal liability applying to all crimes. The Dutch Economic Crimes Law recognizes criminal sanctions on legal persons based on their annual turnover (Library of Congress (Netherland), 2019). Thus, they will not encounter the problem of corporate criminal liability as the Indonesian do. B. V. Volzhenkin says that the ideal solutions to penal policy on economy are three important aspects, i.e. policy making, institutional strengthening, and science. (Petrasheva et al., 2017, p. 213) Several elements in social integration need to be improved to increase the effectiveness of Indonesian penal policy on economy (Petrasheva et al., 2017, p. 213). It is necessary to stipulate the enforcement of economic criminal law to serve justice both through courts and out-of-court settlements. Comprehensive regulations will lead to legal certainty for businesspersons to adopt effective business strategies (Petrasheva et al., 2017, p. 213). The legal certainty will be directly proportional to the economy of a nation.
To make the comprehensive regulations, there must be understanding of the classifications of economic crimes to stipulate. Several characteristics of economic crimes which are crucial to be formulated are: a) influence of economic or market development, b) more flexible interpretations, and c) sanctions which can be calculated by interested parties (Yoserwan, 2014, p. 125). This concept is upheld by Supriyanta that economic crimes are highly dependent on the economic system and development of a society (Supriyanta, 2007, p. 42). The concept is in line with Muladi's opinion that economic crimes are a part of economic law and economic law constitutes a part of the economic system of a country (Muladi, 1992, p. 13).
The stipulation of economic criminal law should take various interests into consideration to avoid contra-productive overcriminalization. Criminal law should be the last resort (ultimum remedium). It can only play a role if the out-of-court settlements are or are considered insufficient. In crime policy, it is a moral approach when a case can be resolved through other channels, i.e. administrative and civil law, let the path first pass (Supriyanta, 2007, p. 52). From the perspective of economic and legal interests related to state duty, economic criminal law is state duty to regulate how its economic goals are to be achieved (Fazri, 2018, p. 442).
As mentioned above, because economic criminal law is state's response to its responsibility in economy, it plays a role as a regulator. Hence, it exercises its power to lead to conducive situations not for assuming power. The enforcement of criminal law in exercising the state power is aimed to realize legal certainty in economy and create the condusive situations for the economy (Fadri, 2018, p. 442). It is important that the criminalization of economic crimes must consider the economic development. In a particular time, it is possible an act is considered as a crime and after some time, it is not (Fadri, 2018). Thus, it is necessary to make a special law on economic crimes which formulate crucial principles applied to all economic crimes in various legislations to harmonize economic crimes in Indonesia.
All in all, it is necessary to stipulate several points specifically. First, consistent sanctions on economic crimes. Strafmaat in legislation on economic crimes needs to be harmonized, whether it is cumulative or alternative, indeterminate or indefinite. It will increase the effectiveness of sentencing on the ground and lead to legal certainty. Second, corporate criminal liability should be stipulated. Supreme Court Regulation 13/2016 is no longer sufficient to deal with all economic crimes. Despite corporate criminal liability in The Bill of Penal Code, it is important to stipulate corporate criminal liability specifically. For example, Draft Legislation on Financial and Economic Crimes in the Netherlands states that sanctions on corporations are based on their annual revenue for a more deterrent effect (Library of Congress Netherland). Third, criminal law as as the last resort or ultimum remidium. This principle asserts that all other mechanisms shall be exhausted before criminal law is used (Jareborg, 2005, p. 525). It is important that in the development of economic criminal law, economic loss recovery should be the main goal. Sentencing will not immediately satisfy the victims of economic crimes. This mechanism needs to be analysed and explained in comprehensive research.

Future research and limitation
This article discusses the urgency of the reform. To support the argument of urgency, the disparity of regulations in economic crimes are explained. However, the limitation of this research is that for every point of disparity, it is not deeply explained. So the limitation of the research is that the article focuses on criminal policy and it is not talking about principles of criminal law. The paper discussed on corporate criminal responsibility, sentencing principles, and ultima ratio as the arguments of urgency. The future research may discuss further how those principles shall be regulated as viable legislation.

Conclusions
From the discussions above, it is concluded that the penal policy on economic crimes has no clear direction and aim. UU TPE can no longer meet the needs of economic law in Indonesia. The stipulation about various economic crimes can be found in several laws on economy and has a high level of disparity. They have different criminal sanctions and corporate criminal liability requirements which are likely to cause problems in practice.
The reform of economic criminal law be aimed to help develop the Indonesian economic system and not merely focus on sentencing. The stipulation about how economic criminal law is enforced needs to be codified. The codification is necessary to create harmonization of economic criminal law, at least in terms of sentencing, corporate criminal liability, and the principle of ultimum remidium.

Funding
The author received funding for Publication Charge from Lembaga Pengelola Dana Keuangan Republik Indonesiano direct funding for this research

Citation information
Cite this article as: The urgency of law reforms on economic crimes in Indonesia, Muhammad Fatahillah Akbar, Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2175487.