Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2025 (“PERMA Number 3 of 2025”), which was announced on December 10, 2025, and came into effective on December 23, 2025, is an important milestone in the renewal of the approach to criminal tax law enforcement. This regulation was issued as a guideline for courts in handling criminal cases in the field of taxation.
The background to the enactment of PERMA Number 3 of 2025 relates to the need for legal certainty in the handling of tax crimes, particularly in cases involving corporations. One of these is the criminal liability of corporations and the concept of beneficial owners. One of the substances regulated in this PERMA is corporate criminal liability. Article 6 paragraph (2) of PERMA Number 3 of 2025 states that criminal acts by corporations can be committed by:
- The person who gave the order;
- The person in control; or
- The beneficial owner of the corporation.
The provision also emphasizes that the parties that can be held accountable are not limited to the formal structure of the organization, but also include parties “outside the organizational structure who can control the Corporation.”
On the other hand, in the context of tax law enforcement, PERMA Number 3 of 2025 can also be understood within the framework of the ultimum remedium principle, which is the placement of criminal law as a last resort after administrative instruments are ineffective or unfulfilled. This is reflected in several provisions in the PERMA.
This approach is evident in the design of PERMA Number 3 of 2025, which places the recovery of state losses as the main objective, for example by emphasizing that Preliminary Evidence Examination is still an administrative process and not a subject of pretrial proceedings (Article 7 paragraph (4) PERMA Number of 2025), and opening up the possibility of settlement through the payment of tax principal and administrative sanctions at various stages of the process (Article 14 PERMA Number 3 of 2025). Thus, this PERMA not only expands criminal enforcement, but also sends a message that compliance and recovery of state revenue remain a priority, while criminal penalties serve as a last resort when violations are not resolved cooperatively.
Differences in Criminal Liability in PERMA Number 3 of 2025
PERMA Number 3 of 2025 clearly distinguishes between individual criminal liability and corporate criminal liability as follows:
| Individual Responsibility | Corporate Responsibility |
| Not limited to the main perpetrator, but also includes anyone who orders, participates in, encourages, or assists in the act.
(Article 5 of PERMA Number 3 of 2025) |
Reaching the actual controller, the perpetrator can be the person giving the orders, the person in control, or the beneficiary.
(Article 6 of PERMA Number 3 of 2025) |
This formulation emphasizes that the scope of individual liability follows the pattern of participation in criminal law, so that each party contributing to the occurrence of a tax crime can be held accountable according to their role.
Meanwhile, corporate legal subjects are not limited to formal administrators, but can include the actual controllers behind the organizational structure.
Asset Recovery for Evidence and Recovery
PERMA Number 3 of 2025 also clearly distinguishes between seizure for the purposes of evidence and seizure for the purposes of recovering state losses as follows:
Seizure for Evidence (Article 11 PERMA Number 3 of 2025)
Purpose : To collect evidence to prove a criminal act
Key Requirements : Not required
Objects :Accounting records, documentation, and other related evidence
Seizure for Recovery (Article 12 of PERMA Number 3 of 2025)
Purpose :To secure assets to recover losses to state revenue
Key Requirements :Required with the designation of a suspect
Objects :Assets belonging to the suspect
PERMA Number 3 of 2025 introduces a better way of handling criminal tax cases with the introduction of a tax debt payment mechanism and administrative penalties. Payments can be made at various stages of the legal process and will be taken into consideration by judges when making decisions. This policy focuses more on recovering state losses and improving tax compliance, rather than just on punishment, thereby encouraging better and more amicable settlements.
Payment Mechanism and Recovery Approach
PERMA Number 3 of 2025 stipulates that payment of tax principal and administrative penalties can be made at various stages of the legal process and shall be taken into consideration by the judge in passing a verdict.
Based on Article 14 PERMA Number 3 of 2025:
- Individual defendants who pay the principal amount of tax and administrative penalties after the indictment has been read but before a final verdict is declared guilty, but are not sentenced to imprisonment and are only subject to a fine.
- For corporations, such payment implies the imposition of a fine.
This provision shows that recovery of state losses is an aspect that is taken into account in the imposition of penalties.
Proportional punishment for multiple offenders (Article 17 of PERMA No. 3 of 2025)
In cases where there is more than one defendant, PERMA stipulates the principle of proportionality as follows:
- Prison sentences were imposed based on the role of each defendant.
- Criminal fines are imposed proportionally based on the amount of state losses incurred, the benefits received, and the role of the Defendant.
- Conditional criminal sentences/supervision cannot be imposed.
This provision emphasizes the individualization of punishment based on the contribution and impact of each party’s actions.
Mandatory Payment of Criminal Fines (Article 18 of PERMA No. 3 of 2025)
The provisions regarding fines in PERMA No. 3 of 2025 are as follows:
– Criminal fines cannot be replaced with imprisonment and must be paid by convicted person.
– If not paid within 1 month, the prosecutor will seize and auction the convicted person’s assets.
This provision clarifies the executory consequences of fines in criminal tax cases.
Conclusion
PERMA No. 3 of 2025 confirms a new direction for handling tax crimes that is more oriented towards recovering state losses. However, for business actors, this regulation also expands the risk because liability is no longer limited to formal administrators, but can extend to controllers and beneficial owners, and remains applicable even if the corporation is bankrupt or dissolved.
Following PERMA No. 3 of 2025, companies need to mitigate risks early on through orderly bookkeeping, strong transaction documentation, and a cooperative attitude from the outset, as mandatory fines and asset seizures can have a direct impact on operations. The areas that need the most attention are opaque control structures, transactions without adequate documentation, and fragile financial conditions that can increase the risk of escalation to the criminal realm.
Reference:
Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 2025 Concerning Guidelines for Handling Criminal Cases in the Field of Taxation
Author: Noorazka Athallah Anargya, S.H.
Editor: Yohana Maranatha, S.H., M.Kn.