One of the main provisions of Law No. 662-I of 2004 concerning Farming in the Republic of Uzbekistan is that the government must support the establishment of production facilities as well as promote the growth and development of agriculture. The government's 2020–2030 agricultural policy, which prioritizes sustainable development in the agri-food sector of the national economy with the community's food security as one of its goals, strengthened the implementation of the regulation (F.A.O., 2024). This demonstrates how Indonesian policies and those in the agricultural sector—specifically, food security—are similar. As a result, on June 9, 2021, the Uzbek government released a regulation regarding market oversight and fertilizer inspection for agricultural purposes. According to the regulations governing the manufacture, import, distribution, and/or marketing of fertilizers, these activities require government oversight and may call for a permit or certificate of registration(F.A.O., 2024). In summary, the marketing of agricultural fertilizers in Indonesia and Uzbekistan is essentially the same in that authorization is needed in both countries.

The legal foundation, the judicial process, and the nature of the punishment meted out are just a few of the factors that are compared between the judge's rulings in Indonesia and Uzbekistan regarding the criminal act of selling illegal fertilizer. Law No. 12 of 2019 on Sustainable Agriculture Cultivation Systems serves as the foundation for legal use in Indonesia. It addresses a number of topics related to sustainable agriculture, such as planning for cultivation, land use, seeding and planting, water use, and agricultural preservation. In order to achieve an effective and sustainable agricultural system, Law No. 12 of 2019 also takes environment carrying capacity, climate change mitigation, and adaptation into consideration. Next comes Law No. 1 of 2023 on Criminal Law, trade and commercial law, and Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, which forbids the trade in goods that do not adhere to standards. The pertinent legal bases in Uzbekistan are Law No. 93 of 1997 concerning Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan Article 177 Letter A to Letter C, which stipulates that breaking the regulations regarding the production, storage, and sale of goods—including fertilizers—will result in fines, community service, or even jail time. Additionally, Law No. 221-I of 1996 concerning Protection of Consumer Rights Articles 1 through 30 governs business actors' obligations to sell goods in compliance with safety and quality standards.

In Indonesia, judicial processes comprise the following: police or Civil Servant Investigator’s investigations from the Ministry of Agriculture and Related Agencies; evidence gathering; arrest of offenders; prosecution by the public prosecutor; a trial including the cross-examination of witnesses, experts, and tangible evidence; and a judge's ruling based on the facts of the case and relevant legislation. Penalties imposed may include imprisonment, fines, or administrative sanctions such as revocation of business licenses. Justice in Uzbekistan is administered by a court that rules on the evidence presented, the cross-examination of witnesses, the testimony of the parties, the prosecution, the collection of evidence and testimony, the prosecution's prosecution, the trial's presentation of evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, and the arguments of the parties are all part of the legal process. The punishment imposed can be imprisonment, fines, or social work (UUD RI No.12, 1992).

In Indonesia, various forms of punishment are contingent upon the seriousness of the offense. These include administrative sanctions like the cancellation of business licenses, fines imposed in accordance with laws and regulations, and imprisonment. Depending on the severity of the offense, Uzbekistan may impose imprisonment, a fine in accordance with the law, or social work as an alternative to jail or a fine. Both nations emphasize how crucial it is to uphold safety and quality standards when selling fertilizer in order to safeguard both the environment and customers. Uzbekistan offers a harsh social work strategy that is absent from Indonesia's legal framework.

The Law No. 6 of 2023 concerning job creation establishes more effective and cohesive regulations by regulating several clusters, including employment, business licensing, and environmental management. The Job Creation Law includes changes pertaining to the environment. For example, Articles 29, 30, and 31 of Law No. 32 of 2009 on PPLH Environmental Research Center) abolish the Commission EIA, which affects local community information and business actors in hard-to-reach locations during the EIA preparation process(Saputra & Dhianty, 2022). This job creation law forbids the following: (1) inserting toxic dangerous goods (B3), which is forbidden by laws and regulations; and (2) disposing of waste and B3 and B3 waste in environmental media. The explanation of this law states that B3 includes DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), for instance. DDT is frequently used as a pesticide in agriculture to kill insects, and it is also frequently used as an insecticide or mosquito repellent in public areas. The next article's formulation refers to the prohibition as a crime so that it can be punished as a cumulative crime, meaning that it will incur fines and/or imprisonment.

In the agricultural sector, pesticides, agricultural machinery and equipment, feed, plant and animal seeds, or animal seeds and fertilizers, as defined by Act No. 22/2019 on Sustainable Agriculture Cultivation System, are a means of agricultural cultivation. People are aware that pests must be eliminated with pesticides and that plants need to be fertilized. By doing so, crop yields will increase in both quality and quantity. Put another way, the goal of fertilization is to achieve food self-sufficiency by raising crop productivity. Given that fertilizer is a strategic commodity in the agricultural sector, the state must thus be involved in all aspects of its management, from procurement to distribution to subsidies to countermeasures in the event of transgressions. Criminal law and criminal policy need to be able to defeat infractions in that area.

In order to combat the misuse of fertilizer as the primary tool for agriculture and the production of commodities, the government must make the act a criminal offense that is subject to punishment. This is because regulating fertilizer-especially subsidized fertilizer-is vitally important for the government to achieve social justice and equity, particularly for farmers. Subsidized fertilizer theft needs to be severely dealt with because it costs money, especially to farmers. However, before making an act illegal, one needs to consider the following requirements: 1) all laws pertaining to criminal offenses must be created with the intention of preventing harm or loss; 2) the behavior that the law defines as illegal; 3) the offender must be deserving of punishment; 4) the state must have a substantial interest in making the act illegal; 5) the criminal law must serve the state's interests; and 6) the criminal law must not be more expansive than is necessary to accomplish the goals (Douglas, 2013).

There are various rules in the field of fertilizer (subsidized) as a means of preventing crime. First, the subject matter covered by Law No. 7/2014 on Trade is in line with the regulatory scope; this includes trade within and between countries, trade at borders, standardization, trade via electronic systems, trade protection and security, empowerment of cooperatives and micro, small, and medium-sized businesses, export development, international trade cooperation, trade information systems, government duties and authorities in the area of trade, the National Trade Committee, supervision, and investigation. What many people's livelihoods depend on as a determining factor of social welfare is the needs that fall under the category of basic needs. Strategic goods like cement, fuel oil, gas, fertilizer, and cement are examples of essential goods that are crucial to the smooth operation of national development. The next rule regarding necessities is outlined in Presidential Regulation Number 59 of 2020, according to this law as well.

Article 110 of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade is formulated in a way that, when viewed through the lens of offense formulation techniques, only outlines the elements of a criminal offense in accordance with the general rules of offense formulation, which state that there must be a subject (normadressaat) and the offense's core (delictsbestanddellen). The qualification of the deed is not mentioned in this formulation. The phrase "and/or" indicates that the model used to formulate the criminal sanctions against the act is a combination model (cumulative and alternative), which means that in addition to the option to choose between imprisonment and fines (alternative), the criminal sanctions imposed may also be both. Additionally, this article falls under the formal category because, once an act has been committed, it is considered to have been committed, making it punishable immediately without waiting for the consequences(Hamzah, 2017).

Second, rules outlining the kinds of products or services that are forbidden from being exchanged; examples of these rules include Presidential Regulation No. 15 of 2011 regarding the classification of subsidized fertilizers as goods subject to supervision. The policy that the state establishes a food-self-sufficient nation is the first reason why fertilizer was subsidized as a good under supervision. This means that the state must work toward food security, which means that it must provide adequate facilities and improve agricultural and infrastructure facilities, one of which is the fertilizer subsidies; the distribution and use of these subsidies are governed by regulations (Amran, 2018).

Third, since fertilizer is a basic necessity for raising agricultural productivity, the government provides subsidies, the distribution of which is controlled and supervised by the state, in anticipation of fertilizer prices skyrocketing due to increased demand. Fertilizer is therefore viewed economically as a strategic commodity. This will have an impact on the welfare of farmers. Adapun jenis pupuk bersubsidi menurut Perpres yang pengadaan dan penyalurannya mendapat pengawasan meliputi Urea, SP 36, ZA dan NPK. Fertilizer prices will stay high as a result of farmers spending as much fertilizer as possible based on their financial capabilities. This will have an effect on declining productivity and prevent the National Food Security program from being realized. Additionally, the distribution of subsidized fertilizers will arbitrarily cause no impact on the right target.

Fourth is the government regulation in lieu of law number 36 of 1960 on the Investigation, Prosecution and Justice of Economic Crimes. Any act carried out by participants in an economic activity (such as production, attribution, consumption, or marketing) but using illegal methods is considered an economic crime(Putri, 2023). The Republic of Indonesia's Minister of Trade has issued Regulation No. 15/M-DAG/PER/4/2013, which governs the procurement and distribution of subsidized fertilizer in the agricultural sector. This regulatory framework involves Indonesian fertilizer producers and is intended for use by distributors and retailers who must comply with specific requirements in order to distribute the fertilizer to farmers.

This is due to the fact that subsidized fertilizers, such as urea fertilizers, SP 36 fertilizers, ZA fertilizers, NPK fertilizers, and other subsidized fertilizer types decided by the Minister of Agricultural Affairs, are products under supervision. The distributors must meet certain requirements: (1) establish offices and administrators who engage in trading business activities at their designated location; (2) possess a Trading Business License (SIUP/Surat Izin Usaha Perdagangan), a Business Registration Certificate (TDP/Tanda Daftar Perusahaan), and a Business Location Permit (SITU/Surat Izin Tempat Usaha); and (3) own and/or operate warehouse facilities and transportation equipment that can guarantee the efficient distribution of subsidized fertilizer in their designated area of responsibility. The requirements for a retailer are as follows: (1) conducting general trading; (2) holding a Trading Business License (SIUP) and Business Registration Certificate (TDP); and (3) possessing adequate capital and facilities for the smooth distribution of subsidized fertilizers. These requirements are outlined in Article 5 Paragraph (3) of this regulation.

As per the government regulation, economic crimes fall into one of two categories: crimes or offenses. This is in contrast to Law number 36 of 1960, which was repealed by law number 1 of 2023, which dealt with the investigation, prosecution, and justice of economic crimes. Based on the type of guilt-intentional or negligent-this category classifies offenses as offenses when they are committed using deliberate intent, and crimes when they are committed through negligence. Nevertheless, this law also states at the end that offenses and crimes connected to the economic law are called economic crimes. 221-I of 1996 concerning the Protection of Consumer Rights, with fines, social work, or incarceration as possible forms of punishment. It is evident from the punishment aspect that Uzbekistan's legal system imposes more varied penalties. Smaller infractions (up to quintal size) carry no jail time; instead, the offender will receive social work therapy; larger infractions (up to tons) carry a fine equivalent to the cost of mishandled fertilizer.

Such abuse cases will be handled by the competition committee rather than going to court. If a group of judges on the competition committee determines that the matter should be looked into and postponed, then the case will go to trial. The competition committee panel's judges have only decided to proceed with the investigation and refer one case to the court in 2024—the Navoiyazot case, which involves claims of price manipulation (Global, 2024).

Trade is a kind of economic activity that communities typically engage in. It can involve the exchange of goods or services, such as transportation, adventure, tourism, and other services. But this trade can turn into an act that must be related to the law, even from the perspective of criminal law; this trade can be a criminal offense. This is comparable to the government-subsidized fertilizer trade that takes place within the Pati District Court's jurisdiction. The two decisions that will be reviewed in this manuscript are Supreme Court Decision 105 K/Pid Sus/2019 and Decision No. 19/Pid Sus/2022/PPN.Pti.

Nonetheless, one must first comprehend that mistakes in criminal law are a basic component before delving deeper into the decision-maker's errors. The definition of an unlawful act then includes transgressing moral standards, decency norms that emerge in society, and general legal principles. According to criminal law, an act is considered unlawful if it is manifestly against the law, carried out without authorization or power, and goes against fundamental legal principles. In contrast, the elements of an unlawful act under civil law are the following: the act must exist, be against the law, involve guilt on the part of the perpetrator, cause harm to the victim, and have a causal connection between the act and the harm(Sari, 2020). What is known as the criminal's fault in the form of a forgiving reason is the fault that decides whether or not a person can be sentenced to be a criminal (Hiarriej, 2016).

Therefore, Decision No. 19/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. Pti determines the application of the law and establishes the form of guilt of a trafficker who commits a criminal offense "without the right to trade subsidized fertilizer." Pti. According to the Public Prosecutor's single indictment, Law Number 1 of 2023 on the criminal code serves as the normative measure of guilt or its external side, i.e., the perpetrator's actions in this decision. Trading by purchasing and selling government-subsidized NPK Phonska fertilizer, without being authorized to hold and distribute subsidized fertilizer to the agricultural sector as producers, distributors, and retailers, is what the individuals behind this decision are doing. As per the article, the perpetrator's act involves an offense known as an economic crime, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a fine of up to one hundred thousand rupiah, or potentially both. The article's formulation of criminal penalties is cumulative-alternative because it makes use of the terms "and" and "or," which give the judge the option to rule on either of the two types of crimes (confinement and imprisonment) or on both. Furthermore, this ruling is supported by two other regulations: (a) Presidential Regulation N0 15/2011, which modifies Presidential Regulation No. 77/2005 regarding the classification of subsidized fertilizers as goods under supervision; and (b) Minister of Trade Regulation No. 15/M-DAG/PER/4/2013, which deals with the acquisition and distribution of subsidized fertilizers for the agricultural industry.

As per the criminal law, the decision's unlawful nature encompasses the instruction of the illegality of the formal, which is the unapproved sale and acquisition of subsidized fertilizer. The Minister of Trade's Regulation No. 15/M-DAG/PER/4/2013 on the purchase and distribution of subsidized fertilizers for the agricultural sector in the form of permits has established permission as a prerequisite. The nature of the law is that it does not expressly state in its regulations the words "general unlawful nature," which means that actions that satisfy the requirements of the law's formulation are deemed unlawful even in the absence of the words "unlawful nature" in the law's formulation(Hiarriej, 2016).

Since trade is an activity within the economic sphere, the ruling classifying the perpetrator's actions as economic crimes makes sense. Consequently, it makes sense to classify the subsidized fertilizer trade as an economic crime that violates the guidelines outlined in the Presidential Regulation, which served as the foundation for the decision. Dangerousness is one of the criteria, according to Matt Matravers, for whether an act qualifies as a criminal offense. Economic crimes affect a wide range of people and can even trigger other crimes that are connected to them, like money laundering and corruption(Matravers, 2021). This is because research by Kiganda Evans Ovamba & Ochieng Benjack, "Effect of Economic Crime on Economic Growth in Kenya," indicates that crime and economic crime have a significant impact on economic growth. This, in turn, can have an adverse effect on the failure of economic development and can encourage the emergence of new crimes like bribery, fraud, and even corruption (Ovamba & Benjack, 2018).

Unlawful subsidies for fertilizer trade can also have an impact on the economy, particularly on farmers' incomes since fertilizer is expensive and many cannot afford to purchase it. This can lead to subpar crop yields and quality, which in turn affects the nation's ability to supply enough food. According to Nicholas Lord and Michael Levi, economic crime has a significant impact on people, particularly those who cannot afford it, making it a serious crime(Lord & Levi, 2023). The government offers fertilizer subsidies to farmers because they are generally in poor financial standing. This helps ensure that the harvest is as expected, but if business actors abuse the distribution or sale process by charging exorbitant prices, it will negatively affect farmers in general and the harvest in particular. These are the main reasons why the authors view the trade in subsidized fertilizers as a serious economic crime.

Apart from the previously mentioned reasons, the Supreme Court's ruling on subsidized fertilizer No. 105 K / Pid.Sus / 2019 makes it legally known that the offender committed a crime without having the legal authority to trade in subsidized fertilizers of the SP36 and urea varieties. The perpetrator's actions, as a single indictment of the Prosecutor General, are therefore deemed by the Supreme Court to be in violation of or not in accordance with Article 6 paragraph (1) letter B of Emergency Law No. 7 of 1955 concerning the investigation, prosecution, and justice of economic crimes (currently replaced by Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the criminal code) as well as Article 2 paragraph (2) of Presidential Regulation No. 15 of 2011 concerning amendments to Presidential Regulation No. 77 of 2005 in conjunction with Article 21 Section (2) of Regulation of Minister of Trade No. 15/M.DAG/PPER/4/2013. Thus, it can be concluded that ruling No. 19/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. Pti. uses the same legal foundation as MA Decision No. 105 K/Pid.Sus/2019 because the offenders' acts in both decisions are essentially the same—that is, they did not have the authorization or right to trade subsidized fertilizer as goods under supervision.

The Indonesian civil law legal system, which does not adhere to the concept of "the binding force of precedent," states that a judge's decision is binding on the decision of a prior judge in the same case. Indonesian judges are not required to follow the decision of a higher court in the same case, but they are also not prohibited from doing so. This is so because judges are free to make decisions because Indonesia views judicial decisions (jurisprudence) as a source of formal law, with the formation process serving as a window into the mind of the judge.

The perpetrator's errors are stemming from the Pati District Court's and the Supreme Court's rulings regarding normative measures or from the perpetrator's external side, i.e., the part of the act where the perpetrator committed an economic crime. A section of Emergency Law No. 7 of 1955 on Investigation, Prosecution, and Justice is violated by the economic crime in question. (Article 1 sub 3e), which is currently updated by government regulation in place of Law No. 10 of 1960 regarding the examination, prosecution, and trial of criminal acts by other laws, specifically economic crimes.

A written rule created by an institution with authorization is known as national legislation. The words "law," which designates any kind of regulation made by the state, are the root of the terms "legislation" and "legal regulation." A state regulation that is formed based on the authority of legislation, including attribution and delegation, is known as legislation. This regulation exists both at the federal and regional levels. Since legislation encompasses processes, procedures, manners, and customary law, its establishment is a step in the formation of a new law. The government must be able to anticipate future trends, opportunities, and possibilities in order to formulate laws. It must also be able to analyze these possibilities and identify opportunities to reduce the challenges that may arise when enforcing existing laws. It is imperative that laws reflect the realities of people's lives, including societal norms and inclinations (Berry, 2018).

These two rulings refer to "other laws" in a materially broad sense, which includes other legal regulations, such as Presidential Regulation No. 15 of 2011 on the determination of subsidized fertilizer that is subsidized under supervision. According to this regulation, urea fertilizer, SP 36 fertilizer, za fertilizer, and fertilizer are among the goods that are covered by subsidies and are under product supervision.

The Minister of Trade's Regulation No. 15/M-DAG/PER/4/2013, which is applicable to trade in goods and services that are subject to supervision, specifically pertains to the procurement and distribution of subsidized fertilizer for the agricultural sector. This Ministerial Regulation lays forth the conditions for the distribution of subsidized fertilizers, including the need for permits from distributors and retailers to trade subsidized fertilizers as goods under supervision. Permits are required for retailers to deal in subsidized fertilizers, such as SIUP and TDP, and for distributors to handle subsidized fertilizer storage, among other things. (See Letter C in Article 4 Section 2 and Article 5 Section 3 Letter C). Apart from the aforementioned prerequisites, the Minister of Trade's regulation No. 15/M-DAG/PER/4/2013 forbids distributors and retailers from purchasing and reselling subsidized fertilizer beyond their designated roles and/or purview. This is if it is violated, it will be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations. The requirements outlined in Procurement and Distribution of Subsidized Fertilizer for the Agricultural Sector were not fulfilled by the offenders in the two decisions. It was evident that the requirements were not met because the person who made the decision was neither a distributor nor a retailer when it came to the purchase and distribution of fertilizer that was subsidized.

The District Court's Decision No.19/Pid.Sus/2022 / PN. Pati, the legal basis was applied in a manner that both complied with the requirements of a single indictment and the Supreme Court's Decision No. 105 K/Pid.Sus/2019. However, the authors claim that when looking at the Minister of Trade's regulation No. 15/M-DAG/PER/4/2013 on the purchase and distribution of subsidized fertilizers for the agricultural sector, "distributors and retailers are not allowed to purchase and sell subsidized fertilizers; instead, they are channels through which production is conveyed to consumers in trading activities. Another noteworthy distinction is that the distributor serves as the manufacturer's marketing conduit to the retailer, while the retailer's marketing channel reaches directly to the customer(Arianto, 2021).