Publication Search

Corporate involvement in environmental crimes has emerged as an increasingly complex legal challenge in Indonesia, given its profound consequences for ecological sustainability and public welfare. This study examines the normative construction of corporate criminal liability within Indonesia's positive legal framework and identifies juridical obstacles undermining enforcement effectiveness. A normative legal research method was employed, incorporating statute, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Although legal instruments such as Law No. 32 of 2009, Supreme Court Regulation No. 13 of 2016, and Law No. 1 of 2023 provide a formal basis for corporate criminal accountability, their implementation is hindered by normative inconsistencies. Key obstacles include difficulties in proving corporate mens rea, limited institutional capacity, regulatory ambiguity, and absence of Piercing the Corporate Veil integration. These conditions create normative gaps perpetuating weak corporate accountability recurring environmental violations. This study recommends regulatory reformulation, harmonization of legal instruments, strengthened institutional capacity toward effective and equitable environmental justice.

This study discusses the liability of directors for unlawful acts in the form of merging personal assets with corporate assets in the context of bankruptcy of limited liability companies. Although the principle of separation of assets protects the personal assets of directors, there are conditions in which this principle can be revealed through the principle of piercing the corporate veil. The merging of personal assets by directors, which causes losses or bankruptcy of the company, can be held accountable. The Limited Liability Company Law and the Civil Code emphasize that if proven to have committed unlawful acts or negligence in carrying out their duties, directors can be sued in civil court and their assets confiscated as part of the bankruptcy estate. This study applies a normative legal approach and a literature study method to analyze legal norms and the liability of directors for losses due to bankruptcy. The aim is to provide an understanding of the legal liability mechanism for directors who abuse their authority in managing corporate assets. By applying the principle of justice, directors can be held personally responsible for the protection of creditors and fair law enforcement.

Notaries have a crucial role in making the deed of establishment of a limited liability company which is the basis for the existence of a legal entity. However, in practice, deeds containing false data are often found, causing legal problems related to the liability of the parties involved. This research aims to analyse the application of the piercing the corporate veil doctrine to limited liability companies established with false data as well as the notary's responsibility in such cases. The research method used is normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches. The results show that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil can be applied when there is evidence of abuse of the legal entity, so that the responsibility shifts to the owner or management. In addition, notaries who are negligent or intentionally allow forgery can be held civil, administrative, and criminal liabilities. Therefore, notaries must apply the precautionary principle in making deeds to avoid legal consequences.

The seriousness of the Indonesian government in paying attention to the environment is manifested in the existence of Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Management by regulating criminal liability for corporate legal subjects subject to criminal penalties. This is because many environmental crimes are committed by corporations and may also be carried out by corporate shareholders as policy controllers of a corporation. Against the background of environmental criminal acts which are often committed by corporations and even shareholders are also involved in these criminal acts, this article aims to provide an illustration that shareholders can also be given criminal sanctions. The method used in this research is normative juridical with a literature study approach. The results of this research explain that corporations that commit environmental crimes are clearly regulated in Law Number 32 of 2009 so that criminal sanctions can be given to provide deterrence to corporate perpetrators, but for corporate shareholders involved it is not yet explicitly regulated in Law Number 32 of 2009. 2009 because they have not adopted the Piercing the corporate veil doctrine and the alter ego doctrine as in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies in article 3 paragraph (2) which eliminates the immunity rights of shareholders so that they can be punished.

. The purpose of this article is to establish the development of the legal theory and doctrine of Piercing The Corporate Veil in the law on limited liability companies. The legal reform of legal persons can be traced back to two milestones in the history of legal persons, namely, firstly, the emergence of the theory of legal persons, which focuses on the personalization of legal persons as if they were persons, and secondly, the emergence of the corporate law doctrine known as Piercing the Corporate Veil, which is motivated to reveal the legal veil of the persons behind the company, namely, shareholders, directors and managers. The research method is normative law with a normative approach), concepts and cases. The results of this study can be attributed to the fact that the principle of piercing the corporate veil supports the implementation of the GCG to prevent the abuse of shareholder power. The principle of piercing the corporate veil can limit or prevent unlawful acts committed by shareholders, commissioners and directors who exploit corporate opportunities for personal gain or misuse of corporate assets. The conclusion of this study is that the legal effect of the principle of piercing the corporate shield on the liability of the PT, if violated, has the effect of limiting the liability of the company to unlimited liability (unlimited liability) up to the personal assets of the shareholders.