Indonesia's New Criminal Procedure Code: Key Changes Businesses Should Know

On 2 January 2026, Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (2025 KUHAP) came into effect. 

The 2025 KUHAP brings significant changes to Indonesia's criminal justice framework. In addition to procedural refinements, it also changes how criminal investigations and prosecutions are conducted by establishing clearer safeguards for all participants – including corporations and their officers.

The 2025 KUHAP also adopted existing regulations on corporate criminal liability and the criminal procedure code for corporations that have previously been regulated by sectoral regulations, per Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016.

The key developments under the 2025 KUHAP that are most relevant to corporations are set out below.

Deferred prosecution arrangements for corporations

The 2025 KUHAP formally introduces a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) mechanism for corporate suspects and defendants. The mechanism introduces new breath into the criminal justice system. A DPA may be applied for after the investigation is completed, but before the case is transferred to court, at the prosecutor’s discretion.

If accepted by the prosecutor, the DPA must be submitted to the court for review and ratification. 

Key considerations that the court must consider include, among other things, proportionality between the obligations imposed on the corporation and the interests of the victim. 

Once ratified, the criminal process will be deferred in accordance with the agreed terms. If the corporation complies with the DPA, the prosecution will be cancelled, while non-compliance may result in the resumption of criminal proceedings against the corporation.

Restorative justice for corporations

While the 2025 KUHAP does not introduce a standalone restorative justice (RJ) regime, it does allow RJ to be used in cases involving corporations, provided the offence falls within the limited categories eligible for RJ under existing regulations. 

RJ functions as an alternative case resolution mechanism, allowing a corporation to resolve a matter through restorative measures rather than through a full criminal prosecution. While similar in outcome to a DPA, RJ differs in key respects:

• RJ is only available for specific categories of offences, including minor offences, complaint‑based offences, and offences punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. A DPA may apply to a broader range of offences.
• RJ can occur from the earliest stage of the process (penyelidikan), while a DPA may only be initiated after the case reaches the prosecution phase (penuntutan).
• RJ requires the consent of both the victim and the accused, whereas a DPA requires the approval of the prosecutor and the court.
• RJ obligations focus on restoration, such as payment of losses to victims, whereas DPA obligations are broader and forward‑looking, and may include compliance reforms, governance improvements and monitoring (ie, not limited to victim compensation). 

Witness framework and enhanced witness rights

The 2025 KUHAP modifies the framework governing witnesses and strengthens witness rights during the criminal justice process. Key changes include:

• Expanded definition of "witness." The 2025 KUHAP now aligns with the Constitutional Court by recognising any person with relevant information or data as a witness – not only those who "saw, heard, or experienced" a crime.
• Timeline for summons and compelling attendance. The 2025 KUHAP provides that in the second phase of the investigation (penyidikan), the investigator may now directly visit a witness's premises if the witness fails to comply with the first summons.
• Stronger and clearer right to counsel for witnesses. Witnesses are now expressly entitled to be accompanied by a lawyer at every stage of the process, including interviews.

Conclusion

The 2025 KUHAP marks a major change to Indonesia's criminal procedures. For businesses, this means a more structured, assertive and transparent enforcement framework, especially in relation to case resolution mechanisms such as DPAs and the availability of RJ, as well as an expanded definition and treatment of witnesses.

In light of these changes, corporations should strengthen their compliance frameworks, ensure their in-house teams understand the new procedural rights and obligations, and update their procedures for investigations, summonses and handling witnesses.

Please reach out to one of the authors or your usual contact to discuss how these changes may affect your organisation.