The rapid evolution of algorithms and Artificial Intelligence has given rise to a new category of criminal conduct that conventional criminal law fails to recognize: algorithmic crime. Unlike traditional cybercrime, algorithmic crime operates autonomously, transnationally, and often without direct human mens rea. Examples include 24/7 gambling bots that recruit victims, AI-driven ransomware that selects targets, deepfakes used for fraud, and manipulative algorithms in e-commerce and illegal online lending platforms. This article argues that Indonesia’s cyber legal framework is structurally unprepared. First, substantively, Law No. 1 of 2024 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE Law) and Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (PDP Law) remain anthropocentric, defining perpetrators exclusively as human or legal persons and providing no normative space for autonomous systems as subjects of law. Second, structurally, law enforcement agencies lack digital forensic capacity and are outpaced by perpetrators. Third, culturally, conventional Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) procedures require an average of nine months, whereas data stored on foreign clouds can be deleted within seven days. Using a normative juridical method with conceptual and comparative approaches, this study identifies three fundamental crises: an ontological crisis regarding the legal subject, an epistemological crisis concerning digital evidence, and an axiological crisis in sentencing philosophy. Without comprehensive reform, Indonesia risks becoming a primary market for algorithmic crime. This article proposes a seven-point roadmap: (1) adoption of a system accountability doctrine to prosecute algorithm controllers; (2) enactment of a Digital Criminal Procedure Code enabling 72-hour takedown orders and cryptocurrency asset seizure; (3) ratification of the Budapest Convention and a reciprocal Indonesian CLOUD Act for cross-border data access; (4) establishment of a specialized Cyber Court and algorithmic auditors under the Supreme Court; (5) shifting sentencing policy from incarceration to asset forfeiture; (6) implementation of a National AI Audit System; and (7) strengthening class action mechanisms for victims. Keywords: Cyber Law, Algorithmic Crime, ITE Law, System Accountability, CLOUD Act, Digital Sovereignty.
Ida Bagus Mahayana Pidada, Made Aditya Pramana Putra
Blockchain-based smart contracts automate the execution of transactions through computer code, but automation alone does not determine whether the resulting arrangement is a legally binding contract. This article examines the legal status and enforceability of blockchain-based smart contracts as electronic agreements under Indonesian law and evaluates how the validity requirements in Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code operate in a pseudonymous, automated, and relatively immutable technological environment. Using doctrinal legal research, the study integrates the Indonesian Civil Code, the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (EIT Law) as amended by Law No. 1 of 2024, Government Regulation No. 71 of 2019, and current financial-sector regulation, supported by comparative analysis of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Automated Contracting, the UK Law Commission's work on smart legal contracts, and relevant European regulatory design. The analysis finds that Indonesian law can recognize a blockchain-based arrangement as an electronic contract when an identifiable agreement is formed through an electronic system and the substantive validity requirements are satisfied. Government Regulation No. 71 of 2019 is particularly significant because Article 46 reproduces the core elements of contractual validity for electronic contracts, while Article 47 requires party identity, transaction terms, cancellation procedures, and choice-of-law provisions. The principal legal uncertainty therefore lies less in basic contractual validity than in attribution of consent and capacity, code-text inconsistency, automated-agent responsibility, coding or oracle errors, reversibility of remedies, and cross-border enforcement. The article recommends targeted, technology-neutral rules and contractual design safeguards rather than assuming that either code alone or a comprehensive blockchain-specific statute can solve these problems.
Utang Rosidin, Dewi Mayaningsih, Muhammad Yahya Wahyudin
The authenticity of state legal documents in the digital system constitutes a fundamental prerequisite for legal certainty and governmental accountability. This study aims to analyze the regulatory vacuum in chain of custody standards within Indonesia's digital archival administrative law, examine the urgency and conceptual foundations of chain of custody as an instrument for guaranteeing the authenticity of state legal documents, and formulate a reconstruction model based on chain of custody through the integration of cryptographic and blockchain technologies. This research employs a normative legal method utilizing statute, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings reveal: first, a structurally embedded rechtvacuum exists in Indonesia's digital archival administrative law, wherein none of the six primary legal instruments analyzed explicitly regulates digital chain of custody standards as a mandatory mechanism, reflecting regulatory misalignment that undermines the legal certainty of state documents; second, the chain of custody doctrine requiring five core parameters of documentation continuity, evidence integrity, authentication, expert verification, and corroborative reliability constitutes a conditio sine qua non for authenticity assurance of state legal documents in the digital age; third, this study formulates a Five-Layer Reconstruction Model integrating permissioned blockchain, SHA-256 cryptography, and smart contracts as the techno-normative infrastructure for a national chain of custody system, accompanied by recommendations for amending the Archival Law, the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, and the issuance of a new Supreme Court Regulation on blockchain-based digital document authentication