PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA KORPORASI DALAM PRAKTIK PENAGIHAN PINJAMAN ONLINE DI DAERAH ISTIMEWA YOGYAKARTANIM.: 22103040049Muhamad Adlan SyahauthorThis study examines the the rapid growth of online loan (fintech lending) users in the Special Region of Yogyakarta has often been accompanied by rising cases of default. This situation has prompted application providers and outsourcing companies to employ collection methods that violate legal norms, such as verbal threats, dissemination of personal data, and misuse of emergency contacts, all of which severely harm consumers and third parties. This study examines the legal issues surrounding structured debt collection practices in Yogyakarta and analyzes the construction of corporate criminal liability for such actions under prevailing positive law. The research method applied is empirical juridical research with a conceptual and statutory approach. Primary data were obtained through direct interviews with online loan victims, victims of emergency contact misuse, debt collectors, HR staff from third-party companies, and representatives of the Financial Services Authority (OJK) in Yogyakarta. Secondary data were collected through literature studies and analysis of online loan contract agreements. This study employs Aggregation Theory and Vicarious Liability Theory as the theoretical framework to assess the imposition of collective and proportional corporate criminal liability for the actions of debt collectors. The findings reveal two main points. First, based on empirical data in Yogyakarta, debt collectors employed excessive methods such as psychological terror, dissemination of information to emergency contacts, and even sending fictitious orders (such as gravestones), which clearly meet the elements of cybercrime. These acts violate positive law and are legitimately classified as criminal offenses of threats and extortion through electronic means, as regulated under the ITE Law as lex specialis. Second, criminal liability for unlawfull debt collection practices in Yogyakarta is not limited to individual debt collectors but also extends to corporations as service providers. Since debt collectors act on behalf of the company, their violations are tied to corporate interests. Target pressures, managerial neglect, and normalized intimidation patterns demonstrate collective fault that fulfills the elements of Article 48 of the Criminal Code. Supported by the doctrines of vicarious liability and aggregation, as well as jurisprudence from the North Jakarta District Court, these practices are legitimately categorized as corporate crime, as corporations not only failed to prevent violations but also benefited from such unlawful acts.345 Hukum Pidana2026-06-02UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUMThesis