A Deal Before Trial: The Emerging Framework of Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) Under Indonesia’s New 2025 Criminal Procedure Code

Author: Salsabila Dewi Pratiwi, S.H.

I. Introduction

The enactment of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (“KUHAP 2025“) marks a significant development in Indonesia’s criminal justice system. Replacing Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code, which had governed criminal procedure for more than four decades, KUHAP 2025 introduces several legal frameworks that were previously not recognized under Indonesian criminal procedural law. Among the most notable developments is the introduction of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA“), a mechanism designed specifically to facilitate an out-of-court resolution of criminal cases involving corporations.

The introduction of the DPA represents a notable shift and a significant development in the approach to corporate criminal enforcement in Indonesia. Formerly, criminal proceedings involving corporations have been structured around the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of an alleged offence through the formal criminal justice process. The DPA provides an alternative mechanism through which the Public Prosecutor and the corporation may reach an agreement concerning certain obligations to be fulfilled by the corporation in exchange for the deferral and, subject to the fulfillment of the agreed conditions, potential termination of the prosecution. Through DPA, corporate criminal cases can be resolved by focusing on efforts to restore the situation affected by the criminal conduct and compensate the victims, thereby enabling victims to obtain more effective and comprehensive recovery, without requiring the corporation to admit its unlawful intent or conduct or to cease its business operations.

II. Discussion

A. Definition and Key Concept of Deferred Prosecution Agreement

The DPA is one of the mechanisms for resolving criminal cases outside the court proceedings which previously have not been regulated under the Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code.^[1] Under the KUHAP 2025, a DPA is defined as a legal mechanism for the Public Prosecutor to defer the prosecution of a corporate offender.^[2] As indicated by its term “Deferred Prosecution Agreement,” prosecution may be deferred pursuant to an agreement between the suspect or defendant and the Public Prosecutor to provide compensation or undertake measures to restore the situation to its original condition, subject to the mechanism further regulated under Article 328 of the KUHAP 2025.

Furthermore, a DPA may only be applied to criminal offenses committed by a corporation.^[3] A corporation is defined as an organized group of persons and/or assets, whether a legal entity in the form of a limited liability company, foundation, association, cooperative, state-owned enterprise, regional-owned enterprise, village-owned enterprise, or any equivalent entity, or an unincorporated association or business entity such as a firm, limited partnership, or any equivalent entity.^[4] Accordingly, a DPA is not intended or applicable to individual defendants.

Based on the KUHAP 2025, a DPA has three objectives, namely: (1) legal compliance; (2) recovery of losses arising from criminal offenses; and (3) efficiency in the criminal proceeding.^[5] During the public seminar called Indonesia Legal & Economic Forum National Legal Seminar 2026, organized by PERADI Suara Advokat Indonesia and held at The Financial Club Jakarta on 25 June 2025, with the theme: “Corporate Criminal Liability Following the New Criminal Code: Six Months In, Assessing the Perspectives of Law Enforcement Authorities” (“ILEF Seminar 2026“), Prof. Dr. Surya Jaya, S.H., M.Hum., (Justice of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia) as one of the speakers, explained that a DPA constitutes a win-win solution for the offender and the victim. The victim may obtain maximum recovery from the criminal offense, while the corporation is given an opportunity or period of time to settle or pay its obligations as determined by an auditor or expert. This allows the corporation to avoid business disruption or collapse and, consequently, to maintain its business partners and public trust and avoid being blacklisted by banks and other financial institutions. Upon resolution of the case through the DPA mechanism, the court does not declare the corporation guilty in a court ruling.

B. Procedure for a Corporation to Obtain a Deferred Prosecution Agreement

DPA originates from an application submitted by the suspect, defendant, or an advocate to the Public Prosecutor before the case is transferred/escalated to the court.^[6] This means that a DPA may be initiated at the request of the suspect, defendant, or an advocate from the investigation stage, once the corporation under investigation has been designated as a suspect by the investigator, before the Public Prosecutors transfer/escalate the case file to the court.

Upon receiving such application, the Public Prosecutor may accept or reject the application based on considerations of justice, the interests of the victim, and the defendant’s compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.^[7] If the Public Prosecutor accepts the application, the Public Prosecutor must notify the court that the DPA process will be undertaken, and such notification must be recorded in the official minutes.^[8]

In implementing the DPA, the Defendant enters into an agreement with the Public Prosecutor, which sets out certain conditions:^[9]

1. payment of compensation or restitution to the Victim;
2. implementation of a legal compliance program or improvement of the Corporation’s anti-corruption governance;
3. an obligation to report to and cooperate with law enforcement authorities during the deferral period; or
4. other corrective measures deemed necessary by the Public Prosecutor.

These conditions are essentially formulated in line with the objectives of DPA, namely, to fulfil legal compliance in accordance with good corporate governance, as well as to restore losses arising from the criminal offense by compensating the victim and undertaking corrective measures to restore the situation to its original condition.

Article 328 of the KUHAP 2025 does not stipulate the maximum period during which a DPA must be performed by the suspect or defendant; however, Article 328 paragraph (13) of KUHAP 2025 implies that the period for performing the DPA may be agreed upon and stipulated in the agreement. Nevertheless, considering that the nature of a DPA is merely to defer prosecution (thus the prosecution may still be conducted if the DPA is not performed accordingly), the period for fulfilling the DPA should take into account the provisions concerning the expiration of the authority to prosecute under the Indonesian Criminal Code 2023. This is to ensure that, in the event that the suspect or defendant fails to perform the DPA, the Public Prosecutor remains legally entitled to pursue prosecution against the suspect or defendant.

Furthermore, unlike the Plea Bargaining mechanism regulated under Article 78 of KUHAP 2025, a DPA does not require the suspect or defendant to admit its unlawful intent or conduct. Prof. Dr. Surya Jaya, S.H., M.Hum. stated in the ILEF Seminar 2026 that a DPA does not examine the merits of the case and is not concerned with whether the suspect or defendant is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’; accordingly, a DPA does not prejudice the suspect’s or defendant’s rights against self-incrimination and to remain silent, in the event that DPA is not accepted.

Once the DPA has been signed by the suspect or defendant and the Public Prosecutor, the Public Prosecutor must submit the DPA to the court no later than 7 (seven) days after the signing of the agreement.^[10]

Upon receiving the DPA, the court must conduct an examination hearing to assess its eligibility and validity before ratifying/approving the DPA.^[11] However, the KUHAP 2025 does not currently stipulate when such hearing must be held and the specific procedures for conducting the examination hearing.

In examining the DPA in the court hearing, the Judge must consider:

1. the conformity of the terms and conditions of the DPA with applicable laws and regulations;
2. the proportionality of the administrative sanctions or other obligations imposed on the suspect or defendant;
3. the impact on the victim, society, the environment, the national economy, and the criminal justice system; and
4. the ability of the suspect or defendant to fulfil the stipulated conditions.^[12]

Furthermore, in examining the DPA, the Judge may request additional information or clarification from the Public Prosecutor, the Suspect, the Defendant, or any other relevant party.^[13]

If the Judge approves the DPA, such approval/ratification be set out in a court determination, and the proceedings shall be suspended in accordance with the agreement.^[14] The approved DPA will also be officially recorded and submitted to the Judge to be recorded in the official court minutes.^[15] On the other hand, if the Judge rejects the DPA, the case will proceed to court trial under the ordinary examination procedure.^[16] During the time period in which the suspect or defendant have to perform their obligations under the DPA, the court has the authority to monitor the implementation of the DPA in accordance with the period stipulated in the agreement.^[17]

In the event that the suspect or defendant fulfils all obligations under the DPA within the stipulated period, the case may be terminated without further prosecution through a court determination.^[18] However, KUHAP 2025 does not yet regulate the procedure for issuing a court determination after defendant’s full compliance with the obligations stipulated in the DPA.

Meanwhile, in the event that the suspect or defendant fails to fulfil the obligations set out in the DPA, the Public Prosecutor is authorized to resume the prosecution process without requiring any further approval.^[19]

Any violation of the procedures of the DPA may result in the DPA being null and void and may constitute grounds for the Suspect or Defendant to submit an objection or challenge.^[20] KUHAP 2025 also does not yet regulate whether the nullity of a DPA requires a declaration by the court through court determination or court ruling, nor does it provide a mechanism through which the suspect or defendant may submit such an objection or challenge.

C. Emerging Practice in Indonesia

Despite the absence of implementing regulations specifically governing DPAs, on 4 May 2026, the Serang District Court approved a DPA involving PT Crown Steel, a steel milling industrial corporation operating in the Modern Cikande Industrial Estate, Serang Regency.^[21] The DPA therefore marks a significant milestone as the first implementation of a DPA in Indonesia.^[22]

It is known that the case arose from alleged criminal offences relating to environmental protection and management involving PT Crown Steel, which was represented by its Director, Marianto.^[23] PT Crown Steel allegedly had been illegally dumping hazardous and toxic waste (“B3 waste“), consisting of fly ash, bottom ash, used refractory, mill scale, and steel slag, was disposed of on open land without a valid technical permit. Based on laboratory tests, the disposal resulted in soil contamination by hazardous heavy metals, including arsenic, lead (Pb), and nickel at the affected location.^[24]

During the examination proceedings, the judges also examined witnesses and experts who testified regarding the violation along with the mechanism for the environmental restoration.^[25]

Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor and PT Crown Steel agreed to comply with all the terms and conditions of the agreement. The judge then heard the statements of the witnesses, experts, the Public Prosecutor, and the corporate party, and examined the cooperation documents concerning the transportation and utilization of the B3 waste and non-B3 waste between PT Crown Steel, PT Kaizen Lestari Nusa, and PT Lancar Abadi.^[26] Under the agreement, PT Kaizen Lestari Nusa would transport the waste from PT Crown Steel to PT Lancar Abadi as the waste management company. In addition, an agreement has been reached regarding the stages of environmental function restoration between PT Crown Steel and a B3 waste restoration policy expert from the Ministry of Environment/Environmental Impact Management Agency.^[27]

The approval was set out in Determination No. 1/Pen.Pid-PPP/2026/PN Srg, which was rendered in a public hearing on Monday, 4 May 2026.^[28] In its ruling, PN Serang approved the DPA between the Public Prosecutor and PT Crown Steel, ordered the Public Prosecutor to defer the prosecution for a period of six months, and ordered PT Crown Steel to fulfil all obligations under the DPA.^[29]

The case demonstrates the practical application of the DPA mechanism in resolving corporate criminal matters and provides an initial reference for how DPAs may be implemented, including the court’s role in approving the agreement and the corporate defendant’s obligations during the deferral period. Although further implementing regulations remain necessary, the case may serve as an important precedent for future DPA proceedings in Indonesia.

III. Conclusion

The introduction of the DPA represents a significant development in Indonesia’s approach to corporate criminal enforcement by providing an alternative mechanism for resolving corporate criminal cases outside the conventional adjudication process. Through the DPA, the Public Prosecutor and the corporation may agree on obligations to be fulfilled by the corporation in exchange for the deferral and potential termination of the prosecution, without requiring the corporation to admit its unlawful intent or conduct or determining whether the corporation is guilty or not guilty. The mechanism therefore offers a mutually beneficial resolution by maximizing victim recovery and restoration of the situation affected by the criminal conduct, while still allowing the corporation to fulfil its obligations and maintain the continuity of its business operations.

In light of this, we recommend that the regulators to promptly issue the implementing regulations necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the DPA mechanism. In addition, any matters that remain insufficiently regulated under the existing legal framework should be addressed in such implementing regulations, including the issues discussed in this Article that have not yet been sufficiently regulated. Such regulatory measures are essential to provide legal certainty and ensure consistency in the application of the DPA mechanism.

Footnotes

1. Explanation of KUHAP 2025 – General ↩
2. Article 1 paragraph 17 of KUHAP 2025 ↩
3. Article 328 paragraph (2) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
4. Article 1 paragraph 55 of KUHAP 2025 ↩
5. Article 328 paragraph (1) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
6. Article 328 paragraph (3) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
7. Article 328 paragraph (4) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
8. Article 328 paragraph (5) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
9. Article 328 paragraph (12) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
10. Article 328 paragraph (6) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
11. Article 328 paragraph (7) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
12. Article 328 paragraph (8) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
13. Article 328 paragraph (9) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
14. Article 328 paragraph (10) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
15. Article 328 paragraph (16) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
16. Article 328 paragraph (11) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
17. Article 328 paragraph (14) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
18. Article 328 paragraph (13) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
19. Article 328 paragraph (15) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
20. Article 328 paragraph (17) of KUHAP 2025 ↩
21. News from Dandapala Website, “Persetujuan DPA PT Crown Steel di PN Serang Jadi Tonggak Baru KUHAP Modern,” accessed from: https://dandapala.com/article/detail/persetujuan-dpa-pt-crown-steel-di-pn-serang-jadi-tonggak-baru-kuhap-modern ↩
22. News from Banten High Attorney Office’s Website, “Legal Breakthrough: The Banten High Prosecutor’s Office’s Implementation of Indonesia’s First Deferred Prosecution Agreement in an Environmental Management Case,” accessed from: https://kejati-banten.kejaksaan.go.id/?p=1929 ↩
23. News from Dandapala Website, Loc.Cit. ↩
24. News from Banten High Attorney Office’s Website, Loc.Cit. ↩
25. News from Dandapala Website, Loc.Cit. ↩
26. Ibid ↩
27. Ibid ↩
28. Ibid ↩
29. Ibid ↩