Supreme Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 2025 concerning Guidelines for Handling Criminal Cases in the Field of Taxation (“Perma No. 3/2025”)—enacted on December 10, 2025, and effective as of December 23, 2025—is considered to possess a higher degree of legal certainty than Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 4 of 2021 concerning the Application of Certain Provisions in Handling Criminal Offenses in the Field of Taxation (“Sema No. 4/2021”).
The “Considerations” section of Perma No. 3/2025 notes, among other things, that divergent interpretations and applications persist in handling tax-related criminal cases due to the prior absence of specific procedures or provisions; the regulation thus serves as a guideline for judges. Regarding its structure, Perma No. 3/2025 is both substantive and procedural in nature, comprising six chapters and twenty-two provisions within its main body.
The regulatory content covers the recognition of corporate taxpayers as subjects of the offense and the expansion of criminal liability for individuals; the classification of preliminary evidence examinations as actions not subject to praperadilan (pretrial review); procedures for filing praperadilan motions; procedures for blocking and seizing taxpayer assets; methods for paying principal tax debts and administrative sanctions; types of court rulings and the imposition of proportionate criminal penalties; and the principles of in absentia proceedings and civil lawsuits against the heirs of a suspect or defendant to secure the forfeiture of assets proven to be the proceeds of tax-related criminal offenses. However, the client notice selectively outlines specific provisions, including procedures for blocking and seizing a taxpayer’s assets, the mechanism for paying principal tax debts and administrative sanctions, and the procedure for the forfeiture of assets belonging to a defendant in a tax-related criminal case.
What has Changed
Previously, Sema No. 4/2021 regulated the following matters:
- Recognition of corporate taxpayers as subjects of corporate offenses;
- Authority for pretrial hearings regarding tax-related criminal offenses in district courts;
- Criminal liability of corporate management where the corporation is bankrupt and/or dissolved; and
- A prohibition on imposing suspended sentences on defendants in tax-related criminal cases.
Subsequently, Perma No. 3/2025 supplements and amends, among other things:
- The scope and specific details regarding corporate taxpayers as subjects of tax-related criminal offenses;
- Procedures for blocking and seizing taxpayer assets;
- The mechanism for paying principal tax debts and administrative sanctions; and
- The procedure for the forfeiture of assets belonging to a defendant in a tax-related criminal case.
Understanding Procedures: From Blocking, Seizure, and Payment of Principal Debt and Administrative Sanctions to Asset Forfeiture
Considering factors such as the stage of examination, the status of the subject, and scenarios ranging from the absence of the suspect/defendant to the death of the defendant during trial proceedings is crucial for assessing how the rules apply to the blocking and seizure of assets, the payment of principal tax debts and administrative sanctions, and the forfeiture of assets belonging to a defendant in a tax-related criminal case.
- Expansion and Specification of Corporate Taxpayers as Parties Subject to Criminal Liability for Tax Offenses
Perma No. 3/2025 explicitly designates corporate taxpayers as subjects of criminal liability for tax offenses, holding them accountable based on the specific role played by each perpetrator. Furthermore, criminal liability may be imposed on holding companies and/or sister companies, corporate officers (whether or not listed in the corporate structure), controlling parties, beneficial owners, those issuing orders, or individuals who make decisions and determine corporate policy regarding the tax offense committed.
- Distinction Between Preliminary Evidence Examination and Investigation Stages
Perma No. 3/2025 stipulates that the examination of preliminary evidence (or inquiry) and the investigation constitute parts of the handling of tax offense cases. Moreover, the regulation states that the legal action of examining preliminary evidence is not subject to a pretrial hearing (praperadilan). Consequently, coercive measures—such as the freezing and/or seizure of a taxpayer’s assets—are prohibited during the preliminary evidence examination stage.
- Suspect Status and Coercive Measures: Freezing and Seizure of Assets
Perma No. 3/2025 establishes that the freezing and seizure of assets belonging to a suspect or defendant in a tax offense case are intended for evidentiary purposes and/or the recovery of state revenue, subject to the permission and approval of the Head of the District Court. However, seizure for evidentiary and recovery purposes may be carried out without a prior formal determination of suspect status.
- Payment of Tax Arrears and Administrative Sanctions: From the Investigation Stage to Trial
Perma No. 3/2025 stipulates that the payment of principal tax arrears and administrative sanctions during the investigation stage—or after the case has been referred to the District Court but before the criminal charges are read out—must adhere to the statutory regulations. This means it follows the logic of the investigation provisions set forth in the General Provisions and Tax Procedures Law (Law No. 7 of 2021 jo. Law No. 6 of 2023).
Conversely, the payment of principal tax arrears and administrative sanctions occurring after the reading of criminal charges but before the final verdict is handed down follows the logic of the policy established in the aforementioned Perma. The consequences are as follows: if an individual defendant makes the payment, it is taken into account to impose a sentence that excludes imprisonment; if a corporate defendant makes the payment, the payment itself is treated as the imposition of a criminal fine.
- Confiscation of Assets Belonging to a Deceased Tax Crime Suspect/Defendant: From Civil Lawsuits to Determinations on the Status of Evidence
Perma No. 3/2025 stipulates that if a suspect or defendant under investigation or prosecution passes away and there is a loss to state revenue, the case file shall be handed over by the investigator to the State Attorney (*Jaksa Pengacara Negara*) to file a civil lawsuit against the heirs. Alternatively, if the suspect’s assets have already been seized, the investigator or public prosecutor is authorized to petition a judge for the confiscation of the evidence to recover the loss to state revenue.
Furthermore, if a defendant in a tax crime case passes away during the trial proceedings but before a final verdict is rendered, the public prosecutor is authorized to petition for a ruling to confiscate evidence—provided that such evidence is indicated as the proceeds of the tax crime and there is a loss to state revenue based on two valid pieces of evidence—in order to recover the loss to state revenue.
Implications and Mitigation
A key practical question for corporate taxpayers affected by Perma No. 3/2025 concerns the consequences of a taxpayer under “preliminary evidence examination” refusing to provide requested evidence. Given that corporate assets can be blocked or seized prior to the formal naming of a suspect, what options exist for resolving tax criminal cases under Indonesian criminal procedural law?
- Refusal to Provide Evidence Risks Tax Crime Investigation
The framework established by Perma No. 3/2025 accelerates the escalation of proceedings from a preliminary evidence examination to a full tax crime investigation. For instance, a corporate taxpayer’s refusal to provide electronic or physical evidence requested by the examiner will be legally construed as the existence of sufficient preliminary evidence, thereby fast-tracking the case to the investigation stage.
- Strengthening Tax Crime Investigation Authority
In practice, Perma No. 3/2025 reinforces the authority of tax crime investigators to block and/or seize corporate assets for evidentiary purposes without first formally naming a suspect. Such actions may only be taken during the investigation stage, require court authorization, and are permissible only if the prospective suspect has been duly summoned but failed to appear.
- Potential Violation of a Suspect’s Rights Regarding Legitimate Assets: Punishment Before Court Verdict
Conversely, the provisions of Perma No. 3 of 2025 do not address the protection of the rights of a suspect accused of a tax crime. For example, if a suspect is formally named at a later stage, questions arise regarding whether evidence gathered during the preliminary evidence examination may be used to designate the suspect during the investigation phase and whether the blocking and/or seizure of assets remain legally valid and justifiable. Consequently, there is a significant risk of infringement upon a suspect’s rights regarding the freezing and/or seizure of legitimate assets and detention (during the prosecution stage). However, the procedures for handling tax-related criminal offenses are also grounded in Indonesian Criminal Procedural Law, which upholds legal principles—such as the presumption of innocence—as universal rights. Therefore, a rational mitigation strategy for corporate taxpayers is to rely on criminal procedural law to safeguard the suspect’s rights during their defense.
Next Steps for Corporate Taxpayers
Amendments to the provisions of Perma No. 3/2025 may prompt tax crime investigators to target corporate taxpayers—in addition to individuals such as executives, employees, or beneficial owners. Consequently, businesses should take the following measures:
- Design and review standard operating procedures regarding corporate tax compliance, involving tax law consultants and/or tax criminal defense attorneys during the company’s tax planning stage.
- Conduct periodic mapping of tax-related legal risks regarding corporate structures and affiliations—ideally before any tax-related criminal offense occurs.
- Periodically seek legal advice from advocates well-versed in tax law, and secure representation from a tax-crime defense lawyer starting from the moment an official summons for a preliminary evidence examination is received.
