Publication Search

This study examines the distortion between civil and criminal perspectives in the legal considerations (ratio decidendi) of Judex Juris in Supreme Court Decision Number 121K/Pid.Sus/2020. The decision lacks substantial criminal law considerations regarding the alleged corruption offense. Instead, the legal reasoning focuses on the fault or negligence of company directors, particularly the exception under Article 97 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, which embodies the Business Judgment Rule doctrine. Furthermore, these considerations are distorted by tort (onrechtmatige daad) as regulated in Article 1365 of the Civil Code juncto Article 138 paragraph (1) letter b of the Company Law. This research employs a legislative approach by analyzing various legal instruments, including the 1945 Constitution, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Limited Liability Company Law, State-Owned Enterprises Law, Judicial Power Law, Supreme Court Law, and the Corruption Eradication Laws. A conceptual approach is also utilized to examine theoretical concepts concerning corporate crime, directors' liabilities, state losses, tort, negligence from criminal and civil perspectives, business judgment rules, collective collegiality principles, and formal-material classification of legislation. The data comprises primary legal materials (legislation and court decisions) and secondary legal materials (legal literature and scientific journals). Analysis is conducted qualitatively by interpreting legal principles and their relevance to the court's considerations in the decision.

Business judgment rule (BJR) is a principle of protecting directors from suboptimal business decisions that result in company losses. The purpose of this study is to analyze and to explore the legal provisions of BJR and its application principles, which are often related to several cases of directors of companies in making business decisions. The following study uses a normative research method (normative legal research) with a descriptive analytical nature that examines secondary data sources obtained from reading library materials which are finally analyzed qualitatively. Regulations related to BJR can be found in the provisions of the Limited Company Law, the Financial Services Authority Regulation for public companies, and the BUMN Law, as well as the Regulation of the Minister of BUMN in regulating BJR and the application of the principles good corporate governance within the scope of state-owned enterprises. The principle of BJR protection for company directors applies as long as they can prove themselves in managing the company within the corridor fiduciary duty, duty of care, duty of skill, duty of loyalty, and not involved in the practice conflict of interest.

The revision of the State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) Law fundamentally changes the concept of SOE losses by emphasizing that losses incurred in SOE operations constitute corporate losses, not state financial losses. This change has a direct impact on the construction of directors' accountability, which has often been associated with corruption when companies experience losses. This study aims to analyze the provisions of SOE directors' responsibilities based on Good Corporate Governance (GCG) principles within the new regulatory framework, as well as to examine the application of sanctions against directors who violate these principles and cause corporate losses. The study uses normative legal methods with statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. The analysis was conducted by examining the provisions of the Limited Liability Company Law, the revised SOE Law, related implementing regulations, and several important decisions, such as those concerning Jiwasraya, Asabri, Garuda Indonesia, and Pertamina-TPPI. The results show that the principles of GCG, fiduciary duty, and the Business Judgment Rule are the primary instruments in assessing directors' actions. Civil and administrative sanctions are the first line of defense for assessing directors' accountability, while criminal sanctions can only be imposed if there is an element of abuse of authority, conflict of interest, or other fraudulent acts. This research emphasizes the need for a clear distinction between business risks and unlawful acts to prevent directors from being criminalized for business decisions made in good faith and in accordance with good corporate governance principles. These findings are expected to serve as a reference in formulating state-owned enterprise policies and promoting more proportionate law enforcement against directors.

This research aims to analyze the optimization of legal protection and risk mitigation for PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry (Persero) as the lender in a Shareholder Loan (SHL) Agreement with PT Indonesia Ferry Properti, and to examine the legal implications of the PT ASDP directors' liability in the SHL decision-making process. The research method employed is normative juridical with a literature study approach. The findings indicate that although the SHL execution has procedurally met legal principles and Good Corporate Governance (GCG), the optimization of legal protection for PT ASDP requires the enhancement of more proactive post-disbursement fund supervision clauses and, crucially, the implementation of specific collateral to mitigate credit risk, considering the current agreement is still reactive and lacks specific collateral. Furthermore, the directors of PT ASDP bear responsibilities under Article 97 of the Company Law and the principle of fiduciary duty. The Business Judgment Rule (BJR) doctrine can shield directors from personal liability if decisions are made in good faith, with due care, without conflicts of interest, and accompanied by risk mitigation efforts, wherein the implementation of GCG principles is fundamental. Violations may lead to civil, criminal, or administrative liability. This research concludes the importance of contractual strengthening of the SHL and strict adherence to GCG to protect company assets and directors.