Comparative Study of the Law of Deferred Prosecution Agreements or Deferred Prosecution Agreement (Dpa) in the Code Old Criminal Procedure Law and the Criminal Procedure Code New Criminal Code

The development of modern criminal law shows a shift from a repressive approach to a more restorative and efficient approach, particularly in handling corporate crimes. Prior to the enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indonesian criminal procedure system did not recognize the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) mechanism. This study aims to analyze the comparative provisions of the DPA in the old and new Criminal Procedure Codes and examine their advantages and disadvantages in handling corporate crimes. This study uses normative legal methods with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The results show that the old Criminal Procedure Code, based on Law Number 8 of 1981, only recognizes the termination of prosecution based on certain legal reasons and does not provide a mechanism for postponing prosecution based on an agreement. In contrast, Article 328 of Law Number 20 of 2025 has regulated the DPA as an alternative mechanism for corporations through the fulfillment of obligations in the form of restitution, compliance programs, improved governance, and cooperation with law enforcement officials. The DPA has advantages in terms of efficient case resolution, accelerated recovery of losses, and increased corporate compliance. However, weaknesses remain, including the broad discretion of public prosecutors, the unclear definition of crimes that can be used for DPA, and suboptimal oversight and transparency mechanisms. Therefore, regulatory improvements are needed to ensure legal certainty, accountability, and justice.