Prosecutorial Discretion in Tackling the Cryptocurrency Crime in Indonesia

Data, reports, and information show that cryptocurrency has supported certain parties as a convenience, whereas the purpose of cryptocurrency is to minimize the weaknesses of conventional money systems in international relations in the current era of globalization. Countries that cannot represent or apply autonomous law in facing cryptocurrency challenges, because it is feared it is increasingly difficult to overcome global cryptocurrency crime. It is precisely in eradicating cryptocurrency crime, law enforcement authorities, priorities of prosecutors who have the highest supremacy in the field of prosecution and other discretion in law enforcement must be dynamic in law enforcement against facilitators from responses to social needs and aspirations, in accordance with legal considerations must acknowledge the wishes of the community and agree in achieving substantive justice. Considering that virtual currency has been banned in Indonesia but crypto-asset trading on the futures exchange has been in force, responsive discretionary prosecutions are needed in combating cryptocurrency crime in Indonesia. Liability that exceeds liability based on faults, namely strict liability, vicarious liability, and secondary liability to any parties that cause cryptocurrency crime can be applied to the mechanism of "follow the money" and "trace the information and communication technologies (ICTs) footprint". It is hoped that prosecution discretion by the prosecutor can reach to the monitoring of suspicious "nodes" and monitoring the registration of ICTs that are vulnerable to cryptocurrency crimes, such as laptops, cellphones, computers, and SIM cards, in providing a deterrent effect to the perpetrators of cryptocurrency crime.

The Law of Musical Borrowing

Creating music often involves borrowing from preexisting sources. Copyright law applies to a range of common borrowing practices including sampling, remixing, linking, and creating user-generated content for online platforms. When analyzing musical borrowing, it is important to first establish what aspects of musical creativity copyright does and does not protect. A series of cases illustrate when the law identifies borrowing of unprotected aspects of prior works, such as musical ideas, common melodic sequences, and chord progressions. Other cases illustrate how the law also permits some borrowing of protected expression if the borrowing is fair use. Digital technology facilitates musical borrowing, and certain online practices such as posting hyperlinks to other musical sources are permitted unless the person posting the links knows that the link leads to infringing material, intends to encourage others to infringe or meets other requirements for secondary liability for copyright infringement.

20. Vicarious liability

This chapter examines the principle of vicarious liability, a form of secondary liability through which employers may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the torts of their employees, even though the employer themselves may be entirely blameless. The imposition of vicarious liability is one of the most important exceptions to the general approach of the common law whereby liability for any wrongdoing is imposed on, and only on, the wrongdoer(s). A defendant will not be vicariously liable unless the following conditions are met: (a) there is an employer–employee relationship between the defendant and the person for whose actions they are being held liable; (b) the employee committed the tortious act while acting in the course of their employment.

11. Inchoate crime

Inchoate offences include attempts, conspiracies and assisting and encouraging under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Creating inchoate offences is difficult because the conduct involved will tend to be far removed from the type of harm necessary to charge a person under the relevant substantive offence. The actus reus of inchoate offences can encompass a wide range of behaviour, such as ‘an agreement’ in conspiracy or mere words of encouragement in assisting and encouraging. Given the broad nature of the actus reus, inchoates must be kept within reasonable limits by requirements of serious mens rea. This chapter deals with inchoate offences and considers the limits on liability for attempts of conspiracy and other secondary liability. It also discusses jurisdictional issues, common law conspiracies, procedural issues relating to conspiracies, encouragement and assistance under the Serious Crime Act 2007 and the impossibility of committing an inchoate crime.

Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Criminal Law

This book, in its 16th edition, has been completely updated to include all legislative and case law developments and detailed analysis of the many recent developments since the last edition. The material on dishonesty has been rewritten to take account of developments following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos. The book begins with an introduction of definitions of crime and an explanation of the sources of criminal law followed by detailed analysis of the elements of a crime (actus reus and mens rea) including negligence and strict liability. Secondary liability is examined with an emphasis on analysing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jogee, before exploring corporate and vicarious liability. Mental condition defences and the Law Commission’s proposals to reform them are examined alongside issues relating to mistake and intoxication. A comprehensive review of general defences includes the Court of Appeal’s controversial approach to self-defence in householder cases. The final chapter of the general part provides a detailed review of inchoate offences. The second part of the book examines specific offences including murder, manslaughter, other homicide offences, non-fatal offences, sexual offences, theft and robbery, and considers the Fraud Act 2006, burglary, offences of damages to property, offences against public order and road traffic offences.

6. Parties to crime

A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures another to commit an offence is criminally liable and known as an ‘accessory’ or a ‘secondary party’. This chapter focuses on the basis of their liability, the distinction between accessories and principals, how secondary liability differs from inchoate liability, the principal offender, innocent agency, the accessory’s actus reus, whether an omission is sufficient and whether mere presence at the crime is enough. The chapter discusses the Supreme Court decision in Jogee, examining problems of ‘joint enterprise liability’, issues of terminology, the significance of the doctrine of joint enterprise in murder and why the Supreme Court characterized it as involving a ‘wrong turn’. It also deals with withdrawal by a secondary party before the principal offender commits the crime, victims as parties to crime and instigation by law enforcement officers for the purpose of entrapment.

Addressing Residual Liability and Insolvency in Disused Oil and Gas Infrastructure Left in Place: The Cases of Brazil, Nigeria, and Trinidad and Tobago

This article analyses the decommissioning framework for oil and gas infrastructures in Brazil, Nigeria, and Trinidad and Tobago. It examines whether the existing provisions in each country are able to guarantee that the government and, by extension taxpayers, do not bear the costs of decommissioning and, the consequences of insolvency on residual liabilities. An additional motivation for this examination is the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pandemic with significant adverse impacts on the oil and gas industry. A likely consequence of the economic devastation from this is the insolvency of any party with decommissioning obligations.The article argues that the provisions of the Brazil petroleum legislation on the reversion of abandoned installations to the government could imply that taxpayers have to bear the residual liabilities without any compensation from the concerned concessionaires or contractors. It also argues that the provisions of the Petroleum Law to the effect that ‘the reversion of facilities does not entail any expense whatsoever for the Brazilian government ’does not certainly translate to pecuniary compensation to the latter for assuming the future residual liabilities from abandoned installations. The Nigerian and the Trinidad &Tobago Decommissioning Framework also suffer the latter risk of the government bearing the residual liabilities for such disused installations.In Nigeria, the framework is silent on who bears the residual liabilities for disused installations. However, it is argued that the provisions of the Production Sharing Contracts on the transfer of ownership to the Nigerian government implies that they would have to bear eventual liabilities for such disused installations. Even in cases where the licensee or contractor may bear the burden of residual liabilities, the problem of future insolvency and cessation of such companies may entail that taxpayers bear the burden of residual liabilities. The article concludes with key recommendations on how to address the identified gaps using lessons from best practices such as United Kingdom, Norway and United States of America. One of such proposals is on the allocation of liability where there is a transfer of interest. Another is for joint and several or at least secondary liability of responsible parties even after decommissioning activities are over; a recommended provision to this effect is also provided. The third recommendation is on how time-constrained residual liability can be used alongside lump sum payments to limit the State's financial exposure for decommissioning costs.

16. Directors’ duties

This chapter deals with the seven general duties of directors as spelled out in the Companies Act 2006: duty to act within powers; duty to promote the success of the company; duty to exercise independent judgement; duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence; duty to avoid conflicts of interest; duty not to accept benefits from third parties; and duty to declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement. After providing a background on the codification of directors’ general duties, the chapter turns to the fiduciary duty of directors, including shadow and de facto directors. It also examines statutory requirements involving property transactions; loans, quasi-loans and credit transactions; associated companies and persons ‘connected’ with a director; equitable remedies for breach of duty; the ways in which directors can be relieved of liability; and secondary liability with regard to property.

Silence, joint enterprise and the legal trap

The so-called ‘wall of silence’ presents a threat to successful police investigations and criminal trials. Explanations for it have focused on cultural narratives, including distrust in the police, a ‘no snitching’ culture and manipulative ‘professional criminals’. Drawing on a study of serious multi-handed violence and ‘joint enterprise’ as a legal response, this article highlights the role of the law, and its agents, in generating silence among young suspects, whose primary concern is the legal risks of talking. Yet, these young people face a precarious trap, as their silence is interpreted as guilt by the police, propelling them towards charge. This article concludes that to avoid over-charging and to encourage young people with knowledge of serious violence to talk, structural change is needed. The system must reverse the legal rules regarding silence and reform the law on secondary liability to reduce the legal risks of talking.