Legal Literacy — The Supreme Court (MA) issued Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 3 of 2025 concerning Guidelines for Handling Criminal Cases in the Field of Taxation. This PERMA was enacted in Jakarta on December 10, 2025 and came into effect on December 23, 2025 or the date of promulgation, with its placement in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2025 Number 1108.

In the general provisions, the guidelines contain definitions of a number of key concepts that often arise in handling criminal cases of taxation, including the definition of "Every Person" which includes individuals and corporations (both as taxpayers and non-taxpayers), as well as the definition of "Third Party" (e.g. banks, public accountants, notaries, tax consultants, and other related parties) and "Other Parties" (parties who order, participate, encourage, assist, or receive benefits). PERMA also affirms that the scope of criminal acts in the field of taxation refers to the regime of the UU KUP and related tax laws.

The Supreme Court stated that these guidelines have four main objectives: to provide guidelines for judges when examining tax criminal cases, to prevent differences in interpretation and application of provisions, to increase the effectiveness of case handling, and to optimize the recovery of losses to state revenue. These objectives also place PERMA 3/2025 as an instrument for standardizing criminal tax justice procedures—from the initial stage to the execution of decisions—so that practices in court are more uniform.

Structurally, PERMA 3/2025 is structured in 6 chapters with a total of 22 articles. In the principles section, the handling of tax criminal cases is affirmed to be based on justice, expediency, certainty, proportionality, transparency, and accountability.

One of the initial emphases is on the framework of criminal responsibility. PERMA affirms that "Every Person" can only be held accountable for criminal acts committed intentionally or due to negligence, while highlighting the element of fault (mens rea) and/or benefits received as considerations for accountability.

For corporations, PERMA broadens the focus of accountability not only to administrators who are formally listed in the organizational structure, but also to parties outside the structure who act as givers of orders, controllers, or beneficial owners who can control the corporation. PERMA also affirms that the termination or death of administrators does not eliminate corporate criminal liability; likewise, bankruptcy or dissolution of the corporation does not automatically eliminate the criminal liability of administrators, controlling personnel, or other related parties for the actions that occurred.

In the administrative and criminal handling section, the Supreme Court affirms the dividing line: violations of tax obligations that are administrative in nature are handled administratively and subject to administrative sanctions, while those that constitute tax crimes are handled criminally and subject to criminal sanctions. However, PERMA emphasizes that administrative and criminal handling is not a mandatory sequence of processes—meaning that it does not automatically have to go through the administrative route first before criminal handling is carried out.

PERMA also provides an important limit to the realm of pre-trial. The handling of tax crimes is described as including preliminary evidence examination/investigation, handling of criminal acts that are known immediately, investigation, prosecution, examination in court, to the execution of the decision. In this context, the Supreme Court affirms that all preliminary evidence examination activities are not included in the pre-trial authority.

Regarding pre-trial (Article 8), PERMA provides guidelines for judges: pre-trial is adjudicated by the district court in the jurisdiction of the investigator, or the position of the public prosecutor for applications related to the legality or illegality of termination of prosecution. PERMA also stipulates that if the pre-trial applicant is a suspect who is on the wanted list (DPO), the judge shall issue a decision that the pre-trial application cannot be accepted.

In terms of the capacity of the judicial apparatus, PERMA encourages the chairman of the court to appoint judges who have attended technical education and training in the field of taxation to examine pre-trial and the merits of tax criminal cases. If there are no judges in the court who have attended such training, the chairman or deputy chairman of the court may be appointed to examine the case.

In the chapter on procedural law, PERMA contains regulations regarding asset security and evidence. The series of provisions includes blocking, confiscation for evidence, and confiscation for recovery of losses to state revenue, accompanied by a mechanism for the role of the public prosecutor in applying for certain determinations to the judge when the evidentiary requirements are met.

PERMA also opens up space for payment of principal tax and administrative sanctions in the phases of the examination process. For defendants who make repayments after the reading of the charges and before the verdict, PERMA regulates different verdict consequences for individuals and corporations: the judge may declare the defendant guilty with the imposition of a fine calculated from the payments that have been made, and for certain scenarios individuals may be declared guilty without the imposition of imprisonment. Repayment is also a consideration for the judge in determining the length of imprisonment and the amount of the fine.

In the decision and execution section, PERMA affirms the regulation of fines: fines in the context of Article 39 and Article 39A of the UU KUP cannot be replaced with imprisonment and must be paid. If the fine is not paid no later than one month after the decision has permanent legal force, the prosecutor shall seize and auction off assets for payment of the fine in accordance with the provisions of the laws and regulations.

In addition, PERMA regulates the mechanism for examination and decision when the defendant is absent without a valid reason, including the provisions for notification of the decision and the requirements for appeal. PERMA also contains provisions when the suspect or defendant dies, including certain channels for recovery through civil mechanisms by the state attorney if losses to state revenue have actually occurred.

In the closing provisions, the Supreme Court stated PERMA 3/2025 applies from the date of enactment. For tax criminal cases that have been submitted to the court before this PERMA comes into effect, the process will continue until a decision with permanent legal force is reached by referring to the provisions in force previously, as long as it does not conflict with PERMA 3/2025.