This study critically evaluates the recodification of bribery offences in Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (the New Criminal Code) vis-à-vis Law No. 31 of 1999 jo. Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (the Corruption Eradication Law) and core Islamic legal principles on risywah. Employing a normative-comparative method, textual analysis, and doctrinal review of fiqh, the research examines differences in offence elements, burdens and modes of proof, and penal objectives. The findings indicate that recodification streamlines the taxonomy of corruption offences but introduces an explicit requirement that losses to state finances or the national economy be verified—typically by state audit—which materially increases the technical evidentiary burden and may complicate prosecution despite severe penalties for serious conduct. Articles 605–606 preserve the active/passive distinction and broaden subjective proof by adopting a giver-perception criterion (in view of their authority), thereby extending the bases for establishing gratification. Comparative analysis shows normative consonance with Islamic law in protecting trust and justice, yet divergent instruments: positive law prioritizes criminal procedure and asset recovery, whereas Islamic law doctrine emphasizes categorical prohibition, moral restitution, and social sanctions. The study recommends strengthening forensic-audit capacity, clarifying subject definitions and evidentiary standards, and integrating restitution measures with values education to safeguard the effectiveness and legitimacy of anti-bribery enforcement in Indonesia.
Asrofi et al. (Wed,) studied this question.