Normative Construction of Criminal Liability under Article 49 of the Banking Law for Artificial Intelligence Based Fraud Hijriani (a*), La Ode Abdul Manan (b), Subardin (c)
a) Master of Law Program, Graduate School, Sulawesi Tenggara University, Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia.
*hijriani[at]gmail.com
b) Faculty of Economics and Business, Sulawesi Tenggara University, Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia.
c) Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Halu Oleo University, Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia.
Abstract
The advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed the banking sector by enhancing operational efficiency, risk management, and fraud detection. At the same time, AI has facilitated new forms of banking crimes, including deepfake fraud, synthetic identity fraud, algorithm manipulation, and AI-powered phishing, which pose significant risks to financial institutions. These developments raise legal concerns regarding the adequacy of Article 49 of the Indonesian Banking Law, which was enacted before the emergence of AI technologies and does not explicitly regulate AI-related criminal conduct or the liability of parties involved in developing, operating, or benefiting from AI systems. This study aims to examine the adequacy of the criminal liability framework under Article 49 in addressing AI-based fraud, identify its normative gaps, and formulate an adaptive model of criminal liability. This research employs a normative legal method supported by empirical data through statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative-law approaches. Data were obtained from legal literature, legislation, international regulations, and interviews with regulators, banking practitioners, and academics. The findings reveal that Article 49 remains primarily oriented toward human actors and is not fully capable of addressing the autonomous, algorithmic, and cross-system characteristics of AI-based fraud. Normative gaps are identified regarding the liability of AI developers, system operators, and corporate users. Accordingly, a more adaptive framework integrating corporate criminal liability, strict liability principles, and risk-based technological accountability is required. The study concludes that reformulating Article 49 is necessary to ensure legal certainty, strengthen financial system protection, and enhance law enforcement against AI-based banking fraud.
