Digital Evidence Challenges in Cybercrime Enforcement under the 2023 Criminal Code
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59261/jlsp.v4i4.160Keywords:
Cybercrime, Digital Evidence, Criminal Code 2023, Exclusionary Rule, Chain of CustodyAbstract
Background: The enactment of the new Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 2023) represents a significant transformation in Indonesia’s criminal law system, particularly through the integration of cybercrime offenses into the substantive criminal law framework.
Objective: This study aims to analyze the dogmatic construction of cybercrime offenses under the 2023 Criminal Code and identify challenges in the management of digital evidence within criminal justice practices following the implementation of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 20 of 2025).
Methods: This research employs a normative-empirical legal method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches.
Results: The study reveals an imbalance within Indonesia’s criminal law system based on Lawrence M. Friedman’s legal system theory. While the substantive dimension has developed through modern cybercrime regulations, the structural and cultural dimensions remain limited due to inadequate forensic capacity and digital literacy among legal practitioners. Challenges include the volatility of digital evidence, cross-border retrieval of cloud-stored data, and the application of exclusionary rules when chain-of-custody procedures are defective. Supreme Court Decision No. 1089 K/Pid.Sus/2018 illustrates these systemic challenges. Comparative analysis with Wet computercriminaliteit III in the Netherlands highlights the need for integrated legal reform.
Conclusion: Harmonization between substantive and procedural reforms is required through the development of electronic evidence guidelines, standardization of digital forensic procedures, accelerated Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) mechanisms for cross-border data preservation, and modernization of legal education curricula.
References
Ali Murtadho, N. (2025). Illegally obtained evidence in Indonesia’s Draft Criminal Procedure Code (RUU KUHAP): Exclusionary rules and the due process of law. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 25(3), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2025.V25.291-308
Arnell, P., & Faturoti, B. (2023). The prosecution of cybercrime–why transnational and extraterritorial jurisdiction should be resisted. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 37(1), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2022.2061888
Badan Siber dan Sandi Negara. (2024). Laporan tahunan keamanan siber Indonesia 2023. BSSN.
Brenner, S. W. (2012). Cybercrime and the law: Challenges, issues, and outcomes.
Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers, and the internet. Academic press.
Clough, J. (2010). Principles of cybercrime (Vol. 406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. (2021). Budapest convention on cybercrime (ETS No. 185). https://rm.coe.int/1680081561
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Nelson, F. M., Propseriani, M. D., Ramadhan, C. R., & Andini, P. P. (2024). Cracking the code: Investigating the hunt for crypto assets in money laundering cases in Indonesia. JILS, 9, 89. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.vol9i1.4534
Osula, A. M. (2015). Mutual legal assistance & other mechanisms for accessing extraterritorial data. NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) Research Paper.
Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2020 tentang Administrasi dan Persidangan Perkara Pidana di Pengadilan secara Elektronik. (2020). https://jdih.mahkamahagung.go.id
Politou, E., Alepis, E., & Patsakis, C. (2019). Profiling tax and financial behaviour with Big Data under the GDPR. Computer law & security review, 35(3), 306-329.
Pollitt, M. (2020). Digital forensics: An analytical course of action. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 15(1), 11–25.
Prasetyo, D. I., Sholehuddin, M., & Karim. (2025). Ratio legis of cybercrime legislation policy in Indonesia. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 18(2), 57–70.
Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 661 K/Pid.Sus/2019. (2019). Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung. https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id
Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1089 K/Pid.Sus/2018. (2018). Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung. https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id
Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 5084 K/Pid.Sus/2022. (2022). Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung. https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id
Quick, D., & Choo, K. K. R. (2018). Digital forensic intelligence: Data subsets and Open Source Intelligence (DFINT+ OSINT): A timely and cohesive mix. Future Generation Computer Systems, 78, 558-567.
Rahardjo, S. (1979). Hukum dan perubahan sosial: suatu tinjauan teoretis serta pengalaman-pengalaman di Indonesia. Genta Publishing.
Suseno, S., Ramli, A. M., Mayana, R. F., Safiranita, T., & Nathania, B. A. T. (2025). Cybercrime in the new criminal code in Indonesia. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2439543
Van Roomen, T. (2025). Cross-border evidence gathering in criminal crypto investigations: A case study of the Netherlands. Tilburg Law Review, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.423
Wignjosoebroto, S. (2002). Hukum: Paradigma, metode, dan dinamika masalahnya. Elsam dan Huma.
Yasir, M. (2025). The position of digital evidence in the KUHAP evidence system: Normative analysis and implementation challenges. International Journal of Educational Review, Law and Social Sciences (IJERLAS), 5(3).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lonna Yohanes Lengkong, Hendri Jayadi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
