The Difference Between OTT and Catching in the Act: Juridical Analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code

Opinions Opinions

The Difference Between OTT and Catching in the Act: Juridical Analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code

By Budi Harianto

Nov 08, 2025 05:42 AM WIB November 08, 2025 05:42 AM WIB 3-minute read 3-minute read time 107 reads

This article elucidates the definition of Operasi Tangkap Tangan (OTT), its legal basis, and its distinction from the concept of "tertangkap tangan" within the former KUHAP.

The Difference Between OTT and Catching in the Act: Juridical Analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code

Opinion Note

This article represents the opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the Indonesian Legal Literacy editorial team.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If published, you have the opportunity to obtain payout/honorarium according to the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

What is a Sting Operation (OTT)?
The Concept of In Flagrante Delicto in the Criminal Procedure Code
Sting Operations (OTT) in the Reform of the Legal System (New Criminal Procedure Code)
Conclusion

Legal Literacy - Lately, the term Operasi Tangkap Tangan (OTT) or Sting Operation has once again become a highlight. Every time law enforcement (especially KPK) successfully conducts an OTT, public attention is immediately drawn to the event as proof that the law is still working. However, the term OTT is often used in news reports without understanding its legal meaning. Many assume that this term is explicitly stated in the law, when it is not. Legally, the basic concept has long been known through the term “in flagrante delicto” in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). To understand the difference, we need to see how the law explains the meaning of in flagrante delicto and how OTT practices are carried out.

What is a Sting Operation (OTT)?

In simple terms, a Sting Operation (OTT) is an act by law enforcement to arrest someone while they are committing a crime, or immediately after the crime has occurred. Usually, an OTT is carried out after law enforcement obtains strong evidence through investigation (e.g., through wiretapping or reports). The main goal of an OTT is to catch the perpetrator “red-handed” so that evidence of the crime cannot be eliminated. Criminal law expert Eddy O.S. Hiariej once explained that an OTT is essentially a practice of the concept of “in flagrante delicto”. Although the term OTT is not written in the Criminal Procedure Code, in substance the action remains valid as long as it meets the elements of “in flagrante delicto” regulated by law.

The Concept of In Flagrante Delicto in the Criminal Procedure Code

The juridical term that underlies OTT is "in flagrante delicto". This definition is explained in Article 1 number 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 8 of 1981). According to the article, a person is considered to be caught in flagrante delicto if:

Caught at the time is committing criminal act;
Caught immediately after the crime was committed;
Shortly thereafter chased by the public (shouted by the crowd) as the perpetrator; or
Shortly thereafter on him evidence is found that strongly indicates his involvement.

So, the concept of OTT is actually not new. The difference is:

Caught in the Act (KUHAP): Tends to be spontaneous. For example, patrolling police officers catch a thief in action.
Hand-Catching Operation (OTT): Tends to be planned through a process of investigation, monitoring, and arrest at a predicted moment (for example, during a bribery transaction).

This is what often causes debate: can an arrest that has been planned for days still be called "caught in the act"? Many experts say it is permissible as long as the arrest is carried out right when the transaction or criminal act occurs.

Sting Operations (OTT) in the Reform of the Legal System (New Criminal Procedure Code)

Currently, Indonesia is updating its criminal justice system. The revision of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) aims to strengthen procedural justicedue process of law) and protect the rights of citizens. This means that sting operations conducted by law enforcement, including the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), must also comply with these principles and should not result in arbitrary arrests. The revision of the Criminal Procedure Code emphasizes the importance of the right to legal assistance and official notification to families, which were often overlooked in sudden sting operations. With this revision, sting operations are not only viewed in terms of their effectiveness but also in terms of how the process maintains fairness.

Eddy O.S. Hiariej reminds us that sting operations should not turn into entrapment (entrapment), where law enforcement "lures" someone into committing a crime, as that would be a violation of the law.
Barda Nawawi Arief argues that sting operations are a form of progressive law enforcement, as long as the goal is for the public interest. However, if conducted without proper procedures, the results of a sting operation could be overturned in court because it is considered illegitimate.

Conclusion

Sting operations have become an icon of eradication corruption in Indonesia. However, behind the glitz of the news, sting operations are not a stand-alone "magic bullet." Legally, sting operations must still be based on the rules of "caught in the act" in the Criminal Procedure Code. The challenge ahead is to ensure that every sting operation remains fair, transparent, and respects the rights of all parties. True justice is not only when the perpetrator is punished but also when the law is enforced without violating anyone's rights.