Illegal Electronic Investments in Trade Robot Missions According to the Criminal Law in Indonesia
This academic conference paper examines illegal electronic investments under the guise of trading robots within Indonesian criminal law. It analyzes the limitations of the Indonesian Criminal Code and the ITE Law in addressing technology-based investment fraud. The authors discuss mechanisms for victim restitution and the legal status of corporate criminal liability in financial crimes.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Legal scholars, researchers, and policymakers interested in financial crime and technology regulation in Indonesia.
What the document contains
The document addresses the legal ambiguities surrounding illegal investment scams conducted via trading robots in Indonesia. It reviews existing provisions in the Indonesian Criminal Code and the ITE Law, explores normative juridical research methodologies, and evaluates mechanisms for victim restitution and civil lawsuits.
The paper does not provide technical specifications for trading robots or formal regulatory definitions of artificial intelligence algorithms.
- Indonesian laws such as the Criminal Code and the ITE Law lack explicit provisions for technology-based investment fraud involving trading robots.
- Trading robot investment scams often combine fraudulent business models with electronic trading platforms to deceive investors.
- Victims of illegal investments face hurdles recovering losses because criminal asset forfeitures often return funds to the state rather than injured investors.
- Legal avenues like class actions and restitution under Law No. 31 of 2014 provide potential mechanisms for victim compensation.
- Clearer regulations governing digital financial assets and automated trading platforms are needed in Indonesia.
· 1. INTRODUCTION · 2. METHODOLOGY · 3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION · 4. CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Partying swapping robots is expected to pay for misfortune because carelessness in satisfying an understanding with financial supporters in accordance with Article 1243 of the General Code
3. The Mechanism of Returning Victims of Trading Robot Investment
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
2/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Article 28 paragraph 1 of the ITE Law which explains how electronic transactions can deliberately mislead to cause loss consumer.
3. RESUL T AND DISCUSSION
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
2/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Some trader analysis suggests that the purpose of a specified trading location is to allow manipula- tion of fictitious trading charts that have been set up in this way . In this case, candlestick chart trading is used.
3. RESUL T AND DISCUSSION
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
4/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
According to Chapter 378 Criminal Code committing fraud is punishable by up to four years in prison for using a false name, deception, or a series of lies to harm others.
1. INTRODUCTION
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
screening score · 2026-10-23