Paradoks Hukum Rekayasa Sosial Pig Butchering Scam Dalam Investasi Digital Aset Kripto

Ashibly, Ashibly (2025) — Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM

Synopsis (AI-Generated)

This normative legal study analyzes legislation, regulations, doctrine, and secondary legal literature concerning social engineering in cryptocurrency pig-butchering scams. It organizes the scheme into three operational stages: hunting, in which an offender approaches a target through a false identity; fattening or care, in which daily messages and relationship promises build trust; and slaughter, in which the relationship is converted into financial extraction. The article uses this process to examine tensions in applying existing legal concepts to digitally mediated manipulation and investment fraud. It is a conceptual and doctrinal analysis, not an empirical study of victims, offenders, platforms, transactions, investigations, or court outcomes, so the three-stage description is an analytical model rather than a prevalence finding.

Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)

Prior research is described as lacking an international-regulatory response to social-engineering pig-butchering scams in crypto investment. The paper further identifies no international legal instrument specifically targeting this organized, transnational crime, alongside gaps in cross-border investigation, prosecution, information exchange, and asset recovery.

Methods (AI-Generated)

This normative legal study uses a conceptual approach. It examines primary legal materials (relevant legislation and regulations) and secondary materials including legal books, journals, doctrines, and legal research. Data were gathered through library study of legal norms, rules, the legal system, and related literature, then qualitatively analyzed through interpretation and descriptive understanding of written legal materials.

Limitations (AI-Generated)

The study is a normative, conceptual legal analysis based on secondary legal materials, rather than an empirical study of victims, offenders, platforms, or enforcement agencies. Its conclusions on operational barriers and victim experiences therefore rely on legal interpretation, cited literature, and illustrative cases; the text does not report systematic primary-data collection or comparative analysis across jurisdictions.

Future Work (AI-Generated)

Use comparative legal research on cross-border regulation, prevention, and enforcement for crypto-asset investment pig-butchering scams.

AI-Generated Content Notice

The synopsis and research notes on this page were generated with AI from available publication information and, when available, the uploaded paper text. They may contain errors, omissions, or interpretation issues. Readers should follow the DOI or source link, review the original publication, and make their own judgment about the content.

Found a possible error? Request a correction.