Abstract
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 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.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call