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

Petty Embezzlement: If the Value is Small, Will the Perpetrator Only Be Fined?

The New Criminal Code recognizes petty embezzlement. This is important for victims who lose small-value items and ask: "If it's small, is it useless to report?" The answer: not always useless, but the criminal response may be lighter.

Broadly speaking, petty embezzlement is related to certain conditions: the value of the item no more than Rp1,000,000, and the item is not livestock and not a source of livelihood. If these conditions are met, the sanction leans towards a fine (not imprisonment).

This is where the perspective of modern criminal policy is felt: minor cases tend to be directed towards sanctions that do not always involve imprisonment, because short-term imprisonment can create new social problems. However, from the victim's perspective, do not forget: even if it is "minor", it is still a criminal act—and for your benefit, what is important is proof and recovery (return of goods or compensation for losses), not just "years of imprisonment".

If the Perpetrator is an Employee/Someone Paid to Manage the Goods: Why Can It Be More Severe?

There is a situation that is considered more serious: when the possession of goods occurs because of an employment relationship, because of a profession, or because the perpetrator receives wages to control/manage the goods.

The logic is simple: the work/professional relationship adds a "layer of trust" and increases the risk of systemic losses. Therefore, the threat can be more severe than ordinary embezzlement. Examples that often arise in practice: deposit money is taken away, office inventory is "transferred", or client assets are "used personally".

In literature and case studies, embezzlement in the context of position/employment is often distinguished from ordinary embezzlement because the source of possession of the goods is indeed inherent in the employment relationship. There is even research that highlights the error in the application of articles when judges/prosecutors do not distinguish between ordinary embezzlement vs. embezzlement in office—this confirms that the element of "employment/official relationship" is indeed considered important in criminal liability.

What you need to underline as a victim: if your case occurs in a work setting, do not just report "my goods were embezzled", but also explain the perpetrator's position (position/job), why they can hold the goods, and what their obligations are (for example, the obligation to deposit, the obligation to store, the obligation to guard). That is what elevates the construction of the case, not just your understandable emotions.

Embezzlement in a "Forced" Trust Situation or in a Guardianship/Foundation Relationship: What Does It Mean?

The New Criminal Code also regulates embezzlement that occurs when the perpetrator receives goods to be stored under certain conditions—for example, another person is "forced" to hand over goods for storage—or the perpetrator is in a position such as a guardian, trustee, executor of a will, or administrator of a social institution/foundation that controls the goods.

Why is this specifically regulated? Because in those conditions, what is attacked is not only the victim's ownership rights, but also the integrity of the protection relationship. In the context of guardians/trustees, for example, there are parties who should be protected—so the misuse of goods by the party holding the mandate is considered more serious.

For the average reader, this section may seem rare. But for victims who experience property conflicts in guardianship or social institutions/foundations, this special article may be relevant. The key remains the same: show the legal relationship/position of the perpetrator that makes them legally hold the goods, then prove how they misused that control.

If the Perpetrator is a Husband/Wife or Close Family: Can It Be Processed Immediately?

This is the part that often surprises people: there are provisions that allow prosecution for certain property offenses to be not carried out or can only be carried out if there is a complaint within a specific family relationship.

In summary: if the perpetrator is a husband/wife who is not separated (in terms of living arrangements or assets), then there is a situation where prosecution can be not carried out. Meanwhile, if the husband/wife is separated, or the perpetrator is a blood relative/relative by marriage up to a certain degree, prosecution may require a victim's complaint.

In practice, this affects the victim's strategy. If the perpetrator is a close family member, before reporting, make sure you understand whether your case requires a complaint, who has the right to complain, and the time limit. The New Criminal Code also regulates the time limit for complaints (for example, counting months from when the party entitled to complain becomes aware of the crime). So, don't delay too long “because they are still family”—if you really want to take legal action, make sure your steps do not expire procedurally.

Practical Steps for Victims: Evidence to Collect and How to Report to Avoid Deadlock

First, distinguish between “merely a civil dispute” and “indications of a crime.” If from the beginning there was a pure debt agreement (for example, borrowing money and then not paying), it is often drawn into the civil realm. But if the object is goods that are controlled and then claimed/transferred as if it were their own, the element of embezzlement is more likely.

Second, prepare the simplest but strongest evidence. At a minimum, you need: proof of ownership (receipt, vehicle registration/ownership book, invoice, serial number), proof of delivery (chat, witnesses, recordings), and proof of ignored/rejected requests for return. If you have indications that the goods were sold/pawned (marketplace postings, confessions, transfers), it further clarifies “possessing unlawfully.”

Third, if you choose to report, create a neat chronology: when the goods were handed over, for what purpose, when the return was due, the perpetrator's response, and your losses. Many reports are weakened not because the article is wrong, but because the chronology and evidence are “full of holes.” You can still start with a good approach, but still document it—because in cases like this, evidence often “emerges” from everyday conversations.

Legal Basis (New Criminal Code)

• Effective date of the New Criminal Code: takes effect 3 years from the date of enactment.
• Embezzlement (ordinary): imprisonment for a maximum of 4 years or a maximum fine of category IV.
• Minor embezzlement: the value requirement is no more than Rp1,000,000 (and other conditions), punishable by a maximum fine of category II.
• Embezzlement due to employment/profession/wages: imprisonment for a maximum of 5 years or a maximum fine of category V.
• Embezzlement under certain conditions (forced deposit, guardian/trustee/administrator/executor of a will, social institution/foundation): imprisonment for a maximum of 5 years or a maximum fine of category V.
• Family/spouse provisions affecting prosecution (also applies to embezzlement through referrals):
• Fine categories (rupiah conversion): Category II Rp10,000,000; Category IV Rp200,000,000; Category V Rp500,000,000.
• Notes on the imposition of fines (the judge considers the convict's ability to pay and can make installments):
• Additional penalties for certain embezzlement perpetrators (e.g., announcement of the verdict, revocation of rights):
• Complaint deadline (for complaint offenses): a specific time limit is regulated (e.g., 6 months/9 months from knowing).