Entrusted Goods Not Returned: Embezzlement Article in the…

Entrusted Goods Not Returned: Embezzlement Article in the New Criminal Code & Penalties

Redaksi Literasi Hukum Indonesia

14 Feb 2026 · 10:35 14 February 2026 10:35 WIB 9 minutes reading time: 9 minutes 7 read

Goods entrusted or borrowed but not returned? See the explanation of embezzlement in the New Criminal Code: articles, conditions for light embezzlement, more severe forms due to employment relations, and notes if the perpetrator is family/partner.

Ilustrasi penjelasan pasal penggelapan dalam KUHP Baru terkait barang titipan yang tidak dikembalikan. (Source: AI Gemini, Redaksi Literasi Hukum Indonesia)

Question

I entrusted/loaned an item to someone (e.g., motorcycle/cellphone/laptop). Initially, things were fine, but after some time:

The item was not returned, and there are always excuses.
I suspect the item has been sold/pawned without permission.
I have chat evidence and witnesses who know that the item is indeed mine.

My questions are:

Can this be processed as embezzlement according to the New Criminal Code?
What is the legal threat?
Is there a difference if the person in possession of the item is an employee or someone who is paid to manage the item?
If the perpetrator is a family member/partner, can it be processed directly?

Brief Answer

Tap to expand the brief answer.

The case of “goods being held because you trust, then not being returned” can essentially lead to embezzlement, because the goods from the beginning were indeed in the possession of the perpetrator in a manner ‘not due to a criminal act’ (for example, because they were lent/entrusted), then later “changed” to be controlled as if they were their own.

In the New Criminal Code, embezzlement has several levels: ordinary embezzlement, minor embezzlement (small value and certain conditions), as well as a more severe form if it occurs due to employment/profession or because the perpetrator received the goods to be stored in a position of certain trust.

However, there is also a “trap that often makes people take the wrong step”: if the perpetrator is a husband/wife or close family, the prosecution mechanism can be different (can be unprosecuted or require a complaint). Therefore, before reporting, make sure you understand your relationship status with the perpetrator, and prepare minimal evidence so that the case does not stall at the initial stage.

Full Review

Thanks for your question. Read the full analysis below.

Table of Contents

What is Embezzlement, and Why Do "Custody/Loan" Cases Often End Up Here?
What is the Punishment for Embezzlement in the New Criminal Code? Here is the General Framework
Ordinary Embezzlement: If You Did Entrust/Loan the Item, and It Is Not Returned
Petty Embezzlement: If the Value is Small, Will the Perpetrator Only Be Fined?
If the Perpetrator is an Employee/Someone Paid to Manage the Goods: Why Can It Be More Severe?
Embezzlement in a "Forced" Trust Situation or in a Guardianship/Foundation Relationship: What Does It Mean?
If the Perpetrator is a Husband/Wife or Close Family: Can It Be Processed Immediately?
Practical Steps for Victims: Evidence to Collect and How to Report to Avoid Deadlock
Legal Basis (New Criminal Code)

What is Embezzlement, and Why Do "Custody/Loan" Cases Often End Up Here?

In theft cases, items are usually "taken" from the victim's possession without permission. Meanwhile, in embezzlement, what is distinctive is: the item is already in the perpetrator's possession legally/with permission, for example, because it was entrusted, loaned, or the perpetrator was given the authority to hold the item.

Now, the turning point is the moment when the perpetrator unlawfully "possesses" the item—for example, refusing to return it without a reasonable reason, disappearing, selling, pawning, or treating the item as if it were their own. So, the problem is not just "the item has not been returned", but there is an indication of possession that changes into a claim of ownership unlawfully.

Interestingly, many academic studies mention that embezzlement is closely related to breach of trust. In criminal law discussions, embezzlement is often associated with moral/mental aspects and violated "trust"—because the perpetrator obtains the item precisely from a trusting relationship, not from an act of robbery. This perspective helps victims understand: why a neat report (evidence of trust and evidence of refusal to return) is often more "effective" than simply saying "my item is lost".

What is the Punishment for Embezzlement in the New Criminal Code? Here is the General Framework

In the New Criminal Code, embezzlement is regulated in a special chapter, and the threat of criminal penalties is not "one number for all". It is tiered, depending on the context: the value of the item, the status of the item (for example, a source of livelihood or not), and the relationship of the perpetrator to the item (for example, a working relationship or not).

A safe way to read for the average reader: the number in the article is the maximum limit, not an automatic verdict. The decision still considers the evidence, intent, method of commission, impact on the victim, and the circumstances of the perpetrator. So don't be surprised if two similar cases have different results.

In addition, the New Criminal Code uses a category finesystem. This makes the fine amounts clearer and more consistent, but readers need to know the conversion to rupiah (we will discuss this in a special section to avoid confusion).