THE LEGAL VACUUM IN LAW ENFORCEMENT OF
DIGITAL CURRENCY CRIMES BY THE POLICE
Sapta Eka Yanto1,
Faisal Santiago2
Universitas Borobudur,
Indonesia
[email protected], [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The rapid development of digital
currencies has introduced significant legal challenges, particularly concerning
currency counterfeiting crimes. Existing regulations in Indonesia are often
considered inadequate to address the complexities of such offenses, creating a
substantial legal vacuum. This study employs a normative juridical research
method with legislative and conceptual approaches to examine legal provisions
and analyze the characteristics of digital currencies within the legal
framework. The findings reveal critical regulatory gaps in defining and
penalizing digital currency-related crimes, highlighting the urgent need for
legal reforms. Key recommendations include strengthening regulatory frameworks,
enhancing police investigative capabilities, and fostering cooperation between
law enforcement and financial institutions. Establishing more precise legal
definitions and providing specialized training for police officers are
essential steps toward building a more responsive and effective law enforcement
system capable of addressing digital-era crimes. These measures aim to improve
legal enforcement practices and support the development of comprehensive
digital currency regulations.
Keywords: criminal acts, digital currency, legal
vacuum, police
Corresponding Author: Sapta Eka Yanto
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Digital currency, often referred to as
cryptocurrency, is a form of money that exists only in digital form and has no
physical representation
There are several well-known types of digital
currencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and stablecoins. Bitcoin, launched in
2009 by an individual or group using Satoshi Nakamoto's pseudonym, is the first
and most famous digital currency. Bitcoin utilizes blockchain technology, which
is a digital ledger that records all transactions made, making it transparent
and immutable
The growing adoption of digital currencies,
driven by technological advances and financial innovation, has presented unique
legal challenges. These include regulatory gaps in addressing currency-related
crimes, particularly in law enforcement practices. Transactions using digital
currencies are now becoming more common, both for investments, payments for
goods and services, and for transferring money between individuals. Many large
companies have begun accepting digital currencies as a payment method. At the
same time, trading platforms have made it easier for people to buy and sell
digital currencies more safely and securely.
Additionally, advancements in technology and
improved regulations have also supported the growth of the digital currency
ecosystem. Society is now more open to the concept of currency without physical
form, and this has the potential to change the way we transact in the future.
In many countries, including Indonesia, the use of digital currencies is on the
rise, with many individuals and businesses beginning to explore the potential
offered by this technology
Crimes against currency are often perpetrated
by individuals from middle or upper socioeconomic classes who have good
education and social status compared to those from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds. One form of this crime is the utilization of coins as raw
materials for jewelry, where the perpetrators collect and melt down coins
because their material value is higher than their nominal value. This action
harms the state, particularly Bank Indonesia, as the authority responsible for
issuing currency, as well as the public who receives counterfeit money
The legal framework governing currency in
Indonesia primarily addresses physical currency, creating a regulatory gap in
managing digital currency crimes. This study examines how current laws fall
short in addressing crimes involving digital currencies and the implications
for law enforcement. As a legal means of payment in Indonesia, the evolution of
currency from physical money and bank money to digital currency has led to
changes in the types of crimes related to money. Offenses regulated under
Articles 244 and 245 of the Indonesian Penal Code, as well as Law No. 7 of 2011
on Currency, have now shifted to crimes related to computer and digital access,
indicating an adaptation of criminal activity to technological advancements.
Money, as a valuable asset, becomes a target for many individuals, who often
attempt to obtain it through unlawful means. This drives some individuals to
take shortcuts, which are categorized as criminal offenses within the legal
context
Counterfeiting currency poses significant
societal harm and is regulated under Indonesian law, including Articles 244 to
251 of the Penal Code and 23 to 37 of Law No. 7 of 2011 on Currency. These laws
designate the rupiah as the only legal currency safeguarded by specific
banknote features such as design and printing techniques to prevent
counterfeiting
The repression of currency counterfeiting
crimes through the enforcement of criminal law is a strategic step to eradicate
and address this crime by law enforcement authorities within the criminal
justice system. The process of combating this crime begins with the actions of
the police, who act as investigators to entrap the perpetrators of currency
counterfeiting. In order to designate a suspect, investigators must first prove
the existence of elements of wrongdoing. This process of proof is crucial, as
determining whether someone is guilty or not is inseparable from the criminal
acts they have committed. In this regard, the Law on Currency has outlined
several measures to expand investigative activities, which include access to
electronic data and the seizure of relevant evidence
One of the challenges faced by the police in
law enforcement against currency counterfeiting is the limited authority of
investigators to access electronically stored data. In the pursuit of evidence,
investigators have the right to gain access to and examine data stored in
computer archives, internet networks, and other data storage media. This is
especially important as many counterfeiting activities occur through digital
technology. Additionally, investigators are also permitted to seize evidence
from data owners and electronic service providers, which can serve as crucial
evidence in the investigative process. If a connection between the electronic
data and the case being handled is established, that data must be included in
the case file. However, if there is no connection, investigators are obliged to
delete that data and maintain the confidentiality of the information
deleted—this demands discipline and high responsibility from law enforcement
authorities.
This repressive law enforcement also
demonstrates that the Indonesian National Police (Polri) acts as a subsystem
within the criminal justice system, aimed at uncovering the material truth
related to the crime of currency counterfeiting. This includes fulfilling the
objective criteria of the offense, such as the behavior of the perpetrator, the
consequences of those actions, and other legal elements that underpin the
unlawful nature of the acts committed. Herein lies another challenge: how to
align the goals of the law with the facts revealed in the field. The law
enforcement process requires not only expertise in legal aspects but also
skills in analyzing various types of evidence and data that are often complex.
With the increasing use of technology in counterfeiting crimes, the police must
rapidly adapt to these changes, both in technical knowledge and procedural
aspects, in order to effectively combat the crime.
The urgency of this research lies in the
importance of understanding and analyzing the legal gaps in law enforcement
against digital currency crimes in Indonesia, which are increasingly prevalent
alongside technological advancements and innovations in the financial sector.
With the growing use of digital currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, as
well as the emergence of various forms of related crimes, including
counterfeiting and fraud, this study aims to identify gaps in existing
regulations and the challenges faced by law enforcement authorities in
addressing these crimes. This study aims to identify legal gaps in Indonesia's
regulatory framework for digital currencies and assess the effectiveness of law
enforcement practices, focusing on police authority and investigative
procedures. The research also seeks to propose legal reforms and institutional
improvements to enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies.
METHOD
This study employs a normative juridical
research method to analyze legal vacuums in enforcing digital currency-related
crimes. This approach involves examining legal norms, regulations, and judicial
decisions relevant to currency counterfeiting and digital currency offenses.
Two analytical approaches—legislative and conceptual—are applied to provide a
comprehensive legal evaluation. The legislative approach focuses on analyzing
legal sources such as the Indonesian Penal Code, Law No. 7 of 2011 on Currency,
and other relevant legal instruments. This approach helps identify regulatory
gaps, inconsistencies, and ambiguities in existing laws concerning digital
currency crimes, particularly in criminal definitions and legal enforcement
procedures.
The conceptual approach explores the
definitions, characteristics, and evolving legal status of digital currencies.
This analysis includes examining how digital currencies fit within existing
financial and criminal legal frameworks and assessing their impact on the
broader legal system. Key legal theories on cybercrime and digital asset
regulation support this evaluation. The research analysis process involves
systematically reviewing legislative texts, legal precedents, and scholarly
articles. Legal interpretations are compared to identify contradictions or
enforcement challenges.
Furthermore, the study evaluates law
enforcement practices by assessing procedural issues faced by investigators and
legal practitioners in prosecuting digital currency-related crimes. This
methodological approach enables an in-depth exploration of legal gaps and
supports the formulation of recommendations for strengthening digital currency
crime regulation. The findings aim to contribute to developing a more
effective, adaptive, and technologically responsive legal system in Indonesia.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Effectiveness of the Police Role in Addressing
and Investigating Digital Currency Counterfeiting Crimes in Indonesia
Currency in Indonesia serves as a legal
payment tool in transactions, and currently, the use of electronic money is
becoming increasingly popular. The shift from cash payments to cashless
transactions has become a significant trend, with payment systems that were initially
based on paper, such as checks and giro, now evolving into more advanced and
efficient forms, namely digital payments. This digital payment method, which no
longer relies on paper, creates a demand for transaction speed in the era of
electronic trade. Virtual currency, or what is commonly known as
cryptocurrency, is the result of the application of cryptographic technology.
This technology can transform original data into a more secure form that can
only be accessed by parties that possess the encryption keys. However, the
existing criminal regulations in Indonesia that govern counterfeiting do not
fully encompass regulations regarding electronic money, resulting in legal gaps
in handling counterfeiting crimes. Current laws tend to focus on the counterfeiting
of physical currency and giro and do not explicitly include the counterfeiting
of digital currency. This can create a situation where banks, as issuers of
electronic money, are more protected than the public. For example, if
individuals encounter issues related to electronic money, they tend to hold the
issuing bank accountable. This highlights that banks feel more losses from
counterfeiting electronic money than individuals. In contrast, Denmark has
clear laws that regulate electronic currency counterfeiting, including criminal
threats for those involved in such activities.
Cryptocurrency has emerged as an alternative
to conventional payment tools and is expected to address various shortcomings
present in traditional currency systems. However, over time, the function of
cryptocurrency has begun to shift from being a payment instrument to an
investment vehicle. The volatile value of cryptocurrencies presents
opportunities for profit, leading many individuals and companies to utilize
them as a means to gain profit rather than merely as a medium of exchange.
Nonetheless, this shift also brings various issues, such as value uncertainty,
lack of user protection, and the risk of abuse for criminal activities like
money laundering. Reactions to this phenomenon vary across countries. Some
countries, including China and Russia, have banned the use of virtual
currencies, while Indonesia has issued a strict prohibition through Bank
Indonesia (BI). On January 13, 2018, BI officially banned cryptocurrency
trading, citing Law No. 7 of 2011 concerning Currency.
However, despite this ban, the use of
cryptocurrency among the public shows no signs of declining. Many individuals
remain active in transacting using cryptocurrencies, indicating that the ban
has yet to have a significant impact on controlling their use. The prohibition
issued by Bank Indonesia was supposed to aim at protecting the public from
risks associated with cryptocurrencies. Still, in reality, individuals continue
to have the freedom to use and trade these currencies. In the context of
combating counterfeiting, Law No. 7 of 2011 emphasizes that the government
carries out these efforts through various institutions, including the
Indonesian National Police (POLRI).
Counterfeiting crimes refer to acts that
create a form of falsehood or deception against a specific object, making the
object appear legitimate while contradicting reality. These actions, including
currency counterfeiting, are clearly regulated in legislation. In Indonesia,
the provisions regarding currency counterfeiting are found in Article 36 of Law
Number 7 of 2011 concerning Currency. This article states that anyone proven to
have counterfeited the Rupiah may face a maximum prison sentence of ten years
and a fine of up to ten billion rupiah. Additionally, Article 26, paragraph (1)
states that anyone is strictly prohibited from counterfeiting the Rupiah.
One standard method of counterfeiting is
imitation or counterfeiting itself. This imitation is done by reproducing or
duplicating documents or other objects in their entirety. In the context of
paper currency counterfeiting, perpetrators attempt to produce fake money that
closely resembles authentic currency. However, it should be noted that paper
currency is equipped with various high-security features, making counterfeits
often of much lower quality compared to the originals. The currency regulated
by this Law is the Rupiah, which is the official currency issued by the Unitary
State of the Republic of Indonesia. Article 11 of Law Number 7 of 2011 affirms
that Bank Indonesia has the mandate as the sole institution authorized to
issue, circulate, and withdraw the Rupiah from circulation.
To maintain the quality of the Rupiah in the
community, Bank Indonesia has implemented policies that allow for the
replacement of unworthy Rupiah with those suitable for circulation. This policy
aims to ensure that the Rupiah in circulation has good quality and can easily
be recognized for its authenticity by the public. In Article 1, paragraph 5 of
Law No. 7 of 2011, it is defined that the characteristics of the Rupiah are
certain features established to indicate identity, distinguish prices or
nominal values, and secure the Rupiah from counterfeiting attempts.
Currency's position and legal status are
regulated in the Penal Code (KUHP) and Law No. 7 of 2011, creating a rigorous
legal framework in responding to currency counterfeiting crimes. Both
regulations explicitly provide criminal penalties for counterfeiters; however,
there are gaps in this regulation. Both only address and impose sanctions for
counterfeiting crimes related to paper currency without including criminal
actions involving Giro Money and Digital Money, including Electronic Money.
This limitation poses challenges for investigators during their investigations
as they need help to classify counterfeiting actions involving these more
modern forms of money as crimes related to currency.
Giro Money is a type of money deposited in
banks according to banking law and is regulated through a deposit agreement
between customers and banks. The characteristics of Giro Money distinguish it
from Physical Currency, giving them different functions in the economic system.
Physical Currency, commonly known as cash, is a form of money that is widely
used in daily transactions and can be directly carried by its owner in varying
amounts. In contrast, Giro Money exists in bank accounts, and its withdrawal depends
on the type of deposits held by the customer. In other words, while Giro Money
belongs to the customer, it is not physically in the hands of the owner but is
stored in the bank.
The development of technology has also given
rise to new forms of money, namely Digital Money and Electronic Money. The
existence of these two types of money changes financial transaction patterns,
where cash transactions are no longer the only option relied upon. In the
digital era, bank customers holding Giro Money and Electronic Money can conduct
transactions without directly interacting with another party. For instance,
when a customer needs a new vehicle, the process of transferring funds through
the banking system is no longer a barrier. On the other hand, this also reduces
security risks for customers, as they do not need to worry about carrying large
amounts of cash that could become targets for theft or robbery. Transaction
systems relying on information technology, such as using Short Message Service
(SMS) or online platforms, represent a tangible shift in the character of
transactions offered by Digital Money and Electronic Money.
Challenges Faced by the Police in Law
Enforcement Against Crimes Involving Digital Currency and Legal Reforms on
Digital Currency Crimes
The challenges faced by law enforcement
regarding currency counterfeiting in Indonesia are very complex. The legal gaps
in the regulation of Giro Money and Digital Money create difficulties in
addressing crimes that may arise from the use of these forms of currency. The
obstacles faced by the police as investigators in combating the counterfeiting
of physical currency are diverse, particularly concerning internal aspects.
This includes constraints related to the formal legality underlying the
authority and working procedures of various law enforcement agencies. These
difficulties become even more complex when dealing with counterfeiting cases
perpetrated by organized groups. One significant internal obstacle is the need
for coordination among law enforcement officials on the ground regarding the
proving of currency counterfeiting crimes. This is evident from the persistent
discrepancies in perceptions regarding the application of law as contained in
the Penal Code and Law No. 7 of 2011 concerning Currency.
To address this issue, efforts need to be made
to enhance coordination and establish memorandums of understanding between law
enforcement agencies within the criminal justice system framework. This step is
essential to create a shared understanding concerning the proof of
counterfeiting cases. Additionally, investigators should be more proactive in
breaking the chain of counterfeit currency circulation, primarily through
collaboration with Bank Indonesia as the issuing authority.
Human resources also pose another critical
obstacle. Many investigators need formal legal education or possess the
techniques and tactics needed for investigating currency counterfeiting cases.
Investigations in this context require specialized expertise that not all
investigators have. Therefore, to address this constraint, it is necessary to
enhance the quality of investigators through training and participation in
seminars related to combating counterfeiting crimes. Furthermore, the high
intensity of counterfeiting crimes, along with the variety of methods used by
offenders, combined with the limited number of qualified investigators,
contributes to a lack of professionalism in law enforcement. According to R.
Soesilo, the professionalism of an investigator is determined by knowledge,
capability, and attitudes that align with their duties, supported by adequate
equipment and funding. Hence, achieving a good standard of professionalism
relies heavily on human factors alongside sufficient resources, infrastructure,
and budget.
Additionally, the low moral integrity and
ethics among law enforcement officials is another major problem that undermines
law enforcement against currency counterfeiting crimes. Law enforcement
agencies must have two key aspects: integrity and professionalism. Both of
these do not arise spontaneously but are shaped through a sound system,
including a rigorous recruitment and selection process. Acting against law
enforcement officials who violate regulations is also an essential step in
building integrity, but this must be accompanied by transparency and
accountability within the legal system.
Another obstacle that needs to be addressed is
the need for more investigations against individuals who act as instigators or
masterminds within the counterfeit currency distribution network. To enhance
the effectiveness of investigations, investigators need to take proactive
measures to unveil the networks involved in currency counterfeiting. This
requires intensive coordination and cooperation with agencies that have
authority in currency issuance. In criminal law, the roles of each participant
in a crime are classified into several categories. For example,
"dader" refers to the individual fully responsible for the criminal
act, while "mededader" and "medepleger" are
accomplices in the act. Moreover, there is "doen pleger," who
instructs others to commit crimes, and "uitlokker," who
persuades others to commit offenses. Understanding these roles and
classifications is essential in formulating more effective investigative
strategies to ensnare organized currency counterfeiting criminals.
Currently, investigations carried out by law
enforcement officials often focus only on the individuals circulating
counterfeit money. This creates difficulties in fulfilling the subjective
element of the crime, namely mens rea. In the context of criminal law, proving
for investigators serves as a repressive action against the perpetrators, based
on two main elements: the subjective element or mens rea and the objective
element or actus reus. The mens rea that must be proven includes knowledge,
meaning the perpetrator must realize or should suspect that the money they
received is counterfeit, and intention, meaning the perpetrator has the purpose
of committing the crime. In this regard, it must be shown that the perpetrator
knew and understood that the money they spent was counterfeit, thereby allowing
responsibility for the act to be charged to them.
In the criminal law system, the accountability
of the perpetrator cannot be separated from the existence of a blame element,
whether in the form of intent or negligence. This means that to impose criminal
sanctions, there must be a transparent element of guilt from the perpetrator,
either due to malicious intent or negligence in action. This criminal
accountability ensures that no sanctions are imposed on an individual unless
they can be held accountable objectively and subjectively. Therefore, in the
context of currency counterfeiting crimes, it is unacceptable that a
perpetrator cannot be held responsible for their actions if it is proven that
they had knowledge and intention to commit the act. The requirements for
imposing penalties include unlawful acts and the perpetrator's ability to bear
responsibility. In this case, wrongdoing and unlawful acts become essential
conditions in determining whether someone can be subjected to criminal
sanctions. A sound conception of criminal responsibility includes several
prerequisites: the existence of a criminal act committed by the perpetrator,
the presence of a blame element in the form of intent or negligence, the
ability of the perpetrator to be held accountable, and the absence of
exculpatory reasons that can absolve them from criminal responsibility.
The investigation process in currency
counterfeiting cases also requires complete documentation before being
submitted to the prosecutor's office. The investigative files can only be
submitted once all evidence, including exhibits, is complete. Counterfeiting
crimes can usually be clearly proven when the perpetrator is caught in the act,
allowing the evidence to be comprehensively included in the submitted files. In
many cases, confessions from suspects also bolster the existing evidence. Therefore,
the charges prepared tend to be simple and are often similar to other less
complex cases. This makes the legal process in court easier, and it is usually
viewed that during trials, the examination of the accused need not be extended
to other matters but should focus on the elements specified in the charges.
Law Number 7 of 2011 concerning Currency has
established criminal provisions related to currency counterfeiting. In this
regulation, counterfeiting of physical currency is defined as a crime that may
be categorized as either a crime or a misdemeanor. Mahmud Mulyadi explains that
criminalization, including currency counterfeiting, must consider several
aspects. First, criminal law needs to be used to create a just and prosperous
society, both materially and spiritually. Second, criminal law should function
as a tool to prevent or mitigate undesirable actions. Third, each use of
criminal law accompanied by negative sanctions should consider the principle of
cost and benefit, ensuring that the costs and benefits of the legal application
are balanced. Lastly, it is essential to consider the capacity of law
enforcement institutions in carrying out their duties so as to avoid creating
excessive workloads.
Financial transactions are increasingly
shifting to digital platforms, and the emergence of digital currencies or
cryptocurrencies presents new challenges in law enforcement. While digital
currencies have great potential, they are often exploited by specific
individuals to commit crimes. To date, digital currencies are recognized as
commodity assets and have not received official recognition from the Indonesian
government as currencies equivalent to the Rupiah. This is due to regulations
prohibiting their use as official payment instruments. However, crypto assets,
as regulated by the Minister of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation
No. 99 of 2018 and BAPPEBTI Regulation No. 5 of 2019, can be viewed as
legitimate corporate assets. The use of cryptocurrency as an official payment
tool in Indonesia remains complex. Although recognized as an asset, many still
perceive that the existence of counterfeit digital currencies could disrupt
economic stability. The presence of these counterfeit currencies is highly
detrimental, as they not only cause losses to individuals who use them but also
negatively impact the country's overall economy. The circulation of counterfeit
money, including illegitimate digital currency, presents an ongoing challenge
that must be addressed.
The police play a crucial role in combating
crimes related to digital currencies. Some measures taken by the police include
collaboration with Bank Indonesia, which is the central bank, and the
prosecution service for law enforcement. This collaboration is not only
national but also involves international cooperation through organizations like
Interpol. These efforts are critical given that cybercrime, including digital
currency counterfeiting, frequently involves perpetrators operating across
national borders. In handling evidence related to digital currency, the police
must ensure that no damage occurs during the gathering and storage processes.
For instance, when collecting evidence regarding counterfeit digital money,
actions must be taken carefully to avoid compromising the existing evidence.
The collection must be undertaken following strict procedures, including
wearing gloves to prevent unwanted fingerprints and neatly recording serial
numbers. This is crucial to ensure that every step in law enforcement can be
accounted for and does not harm the parties involved.
From a broader perspective, combating the
circulation of counterfeit digital currency must be addressed through a
comprehensive approach. This includes strict law enforcement against the
perpetrators, educating the public about the dangers of counterfeit currency,
and strengthening regulations governing the use of cryptocurrencies in
Indonesia. Without these measures, the potential negative impacts of
counterfeit digital currency circulation could harm the public and the nation's
economic stability. Effective countermeasures must involve all elements of
society, including the government, financial institutions, and the general
public, to create a safe and trustworthy financial environment.
Legal and regulatory reforms within the police
force are essential to face new challenges arising from technological
developments and the complexities of crime, particularly in the context of
digital currency and currency counterfeiting. In the current digital era, where
financial transactions increasingly depend on online platforms and cashless
payment systems, existing regulations must be updated to accommodate these
changes. Legal uncertainties and gaps in regulations regarding cryptocurrencies
and digital transactions pose more significant risks to society, making law
enforcement increasingly difficult. Therefore, comprehensive revisions to laws
regulating the use and counterfeiting of currency are necessary so that the law
can be more responsive to the new challenges faced. One crucial aspect of this
reform is more precise and more explicit regulations concerning digital
currencies. Cryptocurrencies, as a new form of currency, must receive special
attention in the law. Currently, many transactions are conducted using digital
currencies that are not registered or regulated by the government, creating
legal loopholes that criminals exploit. Consequently, the new laws should
include detailed provisions regulating definitions, use, and penalties for
violations related to digital currencies. This aims to provide legal certainty
for the public and establish a foundation for more effective law enforcement.
Moreover, reforms in police regulations are
also critical to enhancing the capacity and capabilities of law enforcement
institutions in handling crimes related to digital currency. Effective law
enforcement in the context of cybercrime and currency counterfeiting requires
suitable training and skill development for police officers. They need to
understand not only the legal aspects but also the technical aspects of digital
currencies and cybercrime. This training should encompass the latest
technologies, digital investigative methods, and practical international
cooperation to combat cross-border crimes that often occur in these cases.
Reforms should also promote increased collaboration between the police and
financial institutions, including banks and payment service providers. With
closer collaboration, information and data related to suspicious transactions
can be more easily shared, thereby expediting the detection and prevention of
crimes. Financial institutions have a vital role in monitoring transactions, so
policies that facilitate this cooperation will be very beneficial in creating a
safer and more trustworthy system.
CONCLUSION
The legal vacuum in law enforcement against
digital currency-related crimes presents significant challenges that require
urgent attention. Existing Indonesian regulations, such as Law No. 7 of 2011 on
Currency and the Penal Code, cannot address evolving crimes like digital currency
counterfeiting. This study highlights the need for legal reforms focusing on
strengthening regulatory frameworks, enhancing police capacity through
specialized training, and fostering collaboration between law enforcement and
financial institutions. These measures are essential for establishing an
effective and responsive law enforcement system in the digital era.
Additionally, the study underscores the
importance of public awareness campaigns to reduce the risks associated with
digital currency crimes. Policymakers must create comprehensive legal
frameworks that balance technological advancement with public protection,
ensuring economic stability and legal certainty. While this research provides
valuable insights, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The study
primarily focuses on Indonesia's legal context, limiting its generalizability
to other jurisdictions. Additionally, data were drawn mainly from legal
statutes, government regulations, and secondary literature, leaving room for
empirical research involving interviews with law enforcement officials or case
study analyses. Future research could explore cross-border regulatory
frameworks, international cooperation in combating digital currency crimes, and
comparative analyses with countries that have established advanced digital
currency laws. These avenues could further strengthen the understanding and regulation
of digital currency crimes on a global scale.
REFERENCES
Abdurrohim, M. D.,
Prananingtyas, P., & Lestari, S. N. (2019). Analisa Yuridis Digital
Currency (Mata Uang Digital) Dalam Prespektif Keuangan Di Indonesia. Diponegoro
Law Journal, 8(1), 567–591.
Abraham, J., Takwin, B.,
& Suleeman, J. (2018). Counterfeit self: A confirmatory factor analysis
among Indonesians. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39(3),
518–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.07.011
Aringking, H. (2015).
Pemalsuan uang rupiah sebagai tindak Pidana menurut UU No. 7 tahun 2011
Tentang mata uang. Lex Crimen, 4(6).
Bahri, S., & Ramaditya,
M. (2024). Innovation of the finished banknotes business model changes in
Indonesian banknotes printing. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology,
Market, and Complexity, 10(3).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100323
Bhiantara, I. B. P. (2018).
Teknologi blockchain cryptocurrency di era revolusi digital. Seminar
Nasional Pendidikan Teknik Informatika (SENAPATI), 9(1).
Chen, Y.-L., Xu, K., &
Yang, J. J. (2025). Market impact of the bitcoin ETF introduction on bitcoin
futures. International Review of Financial Analysis, 97, 103810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IRFA.2024.103810
de Prince, D., Marçal, E.
F., & Valls Pereira, P. L. (2025). Exploring co-explosive dynamics:
Bitcoin price, attractiveness, and sentiment variables. Economics Letters,
246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2024.112072
Dimitriadis, K. A.,
Koursaros, D., & Savva, C. S. (2024). Evaluating the sophisticated digital
assets and cryptocurrencies’ capacities of substituting international
currencies in inflationary eras. International Review of Financial Analysis,
96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103693
Fan, R., Walker, T. B.,
& Wright, A. (2024). Central bank digital currency in small open
economies. Latin American Journal of Central Banking.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.latcb.2024.100151
Fibriyani, V., Chamidah, N.,
& Saifudin, T. (2024). Estimating time series semiparametric regression
model using local polynomial estimator for predicting inflation rate in
Indonesia. Journal of King Saud University - Science, 103549.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JKSUS.2024.103549
Makmur, K. L. (2024). Why
only scrutinise formal finance? Money laundering and informal remittance
regulations in Indonesia. Journal of Economic Criminology, 6,
100111. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECONC.2024.100111
Mohamed Ibrahim, M. I. B.
(2019). Counterfeit Medicines: A Quick Review on Crime Against Humanity. Encyclopedia
of Pharmacy Practice and Clinical Pharmacy: Volumes 1-3, 1–3,
60–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812735-3.00312-5
Mulyanto, F. (2015).
Pemanfaatan cryptocurrency sebagai penerapan mata uang rupiah kedalam bentuk
digital menggunakan teknologi bitcoin. Indonesian Journal on Networking and
Security, 4(4), 19–26.
Nyffenegger, R. (2024).
Central bank digital currency and bank intermediation: Medium of Exchange vs.
Savings vehicle. European Economic Review, 170, 104890.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EUROECOREV.2024.104890
Putro, B. P. H., &
Soponyono, E. (2015). Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Dalam Penanggulangan Tindak
Pidana Pemalsuan Uang. Law Reform, 11(2), 157–171.
Roestamy, M., Martin, A. Y.,
Rusli, R. K., & Fulazzaky, M. A. (2022). A review of the reliability of
land bank institution in Indonesia for effective land management of public
interest. Land Use Policy, 120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106275
Schmidt, M. (2014). Sibbele
Hylkema, Cowries among the Me or Ekagi. The Impact of a New Currency on a
Group of Central Highlanders in Papua, Indonesia. Edited, and with an
introduction and appendix by Anton Ploeg. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2012, ix + 194
pp. [Comparative Anthropological Studies in Society, Cosmology and Politics
Volume 8]. ISBN 9783643902009. Price: EUR 29.90 (paperback). Bijdragen
Tot de Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde / Journal of the Humanities and Social
Sciences of Southeast Asia, 170(4), 580–582.
https://doi.org/10.1163/22134379-17004005
Sukmaningrum, P. S.,
Hendratmi, A., Shukor, S. binti A., Putri, M. R., & Gusti, R. P. (2023).
Determinants of sharia life insurance productivity in Indonesia. Heliyon,
9(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16605
Xiang, L., Feng, C., Xiao,
Z., & Liu, J. (2024). The impact of central bank digital currency on
macroeconomic dynamics: A DSGE analysis. Economic Modelling, 141,
106930. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECONMOD.2024.106930
Xiao, Z., Niu, Y., Xiang,
L., & Cui, Y. (2024). Central bank digital currency and corporate debt
financing costs: Empirical evidence from China. Finance Research Letters,
69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106195
Zhu, Q., Che, J., & Liu,
S. (2024). Comparative analysis of profits from Bitcoin and its derivatives
using artificial intelligence for hedge. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics
and Its Applications, 654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2024.130159
|
|
© 2024 by the authors.
It was submitted for possible open-access publication under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). |