Criminal Accountability False Investments with Ponzi Schemes in Indonesia
Abstract
Indonesia is currently experiencing a surge of investments, which is resulting in both positive and negative outcomes. Supported by increasingly fast technology, “investment” activists are even more enthusiastic about continuing to develop their investments. Recently, investment activists have faced various forms of fraudulent investment with Ponzi schemes. This study aims to determine criminal liability in investing in Ponzi schemes in Indonesia and the protection measures that can be provided for victims. Using normative legal research methods, it was found that fraudulent Ponzi scheme investors in Indonesia can be charged with Article 378 of the Criminal Code. And, because they do not have a permit, fraudulent investments can be subject to Article 103 of Law Number 8 of 1995 concerning Capital Markets, related to investment victims, falsifying a Ponzi scheme in an application because it uses electronic media can be subject to Article 28 paragraph 1 of Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning information and electronic transactions, which has been amended by Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning information and electronic transactions.
Keywords: investment fraud, Ponzi scheme, criminal liability
References
[1] Lisnawati and E. Budiyanti. Perkembangan Pasar Modal Dan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi Di Indonesia: Analisis Vector Autoregressions (Var) [Online,. Available: www.bapepam.go.id/old/profil/sejarah.htm.]. J. Ekon. Kebijak. Publik. 2011;2(2):707– 28.
[2] Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs. “Laporan Perkembangan Ekonomi dan Investasi,” vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2021.
[3] Fitri W, Elvianti E. TINJAUAN YURIDIS PENEGAKAN HUKUM TERHADAP INVESTASI BODONG YANG MEMAKAI SKEMA PONZI Winda. J. Pendidik. Kewarganegaraan Undiksha. 2020;8(3):22–8.
[4] Santika EF. “Kerugian Masyarakat Akibat Investasi Ilegal Tembus Rp126 Triliun, Melonjak Signifikan pada 2022,” databoks, 2023. https://databoks.katadata.co.id/datapublish/2023/06/14/kerugian-masyarakatakibat- investasi-ilegal-tembus-rp126-triliun-melonjak-signifikan-pada-2022 (accessed Aug. 10, 2023).
[5] Ikhsani MI, Chumbadrika C. Tanggung Jawab Hukum Pelaku Tindak Pidana Penipuan Berkedok Investasi. J. Kewarganegaraan. 2022;6(1):2206–12.
[6] Money Kompas. “Deretan Kasus Penipuan dengan Skema Ponzi di Indonesia,” Kompas.com, 2023. https://money.kompas.com/
[7] Ali M. Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika; 2011.
[8] Kanter and Sianturi. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia dan Penerapannya. Jakarta: Storia Grafika; 2002.
[9] Saleh R. Pikiran-Pikiran Tentang Pertanggungjawaban Pidana. Jakarta: Ghalia Indoensia; 1982.
[10] Huda C. Dari “Tiada Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan” Menuju Kepada Tiada pertanggungjawaban Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan. Jakarta: Kencana Prebada Media Grup; 2006.
[11] Moeljatno, Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta; 2008.
[12] Moeliono TP. Asas Legalitas Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana: Kritikan Terhadap Putusan Mk Tentang Praperadilan. J. Huk. Ius Quia Iustum. 2015;22(4):594–616.
[13] N. Lorien and Tantimin, “Investasi Bodong dengan Sistem Skema Ponzi: Kajian Hukum Pidana,” e-Journal Komun. Yust. Univ. Pendidik. Ganesha, vol. 5, no. 8, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/jatayu/article/view/46113
[14] Hadjon MP. Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Rakyat di Indonesia. Surabaya: Bina Ilmu; 1989.
[15] Wilkins AM, Acuff WW, Hermanson DR. “Understanding a Ponzi Scheme: Victim’s Perspectives.” J Forensic Investig Account. 2012;4(1):1–19. [Online]. Available: https:// doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1466993{%}0A https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846. 2018.1488076.