Disparity in Applying the Business Judgment Rule: Analysis of Supreme Court Decision No. 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020

Authors

  • Citra Ayu Deswina Maharani Universitas Muhammadiyah Kalimantan Timur, Kalimantan, Indonesia.
  • Marsha Odelia Universitas Muhammadiyah Kalimantan Timur, Kalimantan, Indonesia.
  • Dina Ramadhani Universitas Muhammadiyah Kalimantan Timur, Kalimantan, Indonesia.
  • Muhammad Nurcholis Alhadi Universitas Muhammadiyah Kalimantan Timur, Kalimantan, Indonesia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.38035/gijlss.v4i4.1132

Keywords:

Business Judgment Rule, Management, Corruption, BUMN, Supreme Court Decision

Abstract

The Supreme Court Decision Number 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020 which released Karen Agustiawan from all legal charges (ontslag van alle rechtsvervolging) despite causing state losses of Rp568,066,000,000.00 is based on the application of the business judgment rule (BJR), because the defendant's actions were deemed to be in the interests of the company and did not contain elements of fraud, conflict of interest, unlawful acts, or intent. This decision differs from the first-level and appeal decisions which stated that the criminal elements in the subsidiary charges had been fulfilled due to negligence and deviations in the directors' decision-making, thus indicating a disparity in the application of BJR as regulated in Article 97 paragraph (5) of the Limited Liability Company Law. This research uses a normative legal research method by examining Decision Number 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020 through a case approach and a comparative approach. A comparative approach was conducted by comparing two cassation decisions related to similar criminal cases, namely a decision that applies BJR and a decision that does not apply BJR, and comparing the application of BJR in Indonesia and Australia. The results of the study indicate inconsistencies in the application of BJR in Indonesia due to different interpretations of Article 97 Paragraph 5, which leads to disparities in the considerations and court decisions regarding the responsibilities of directors.

References

Ahmad, Y. C. G. A. (2018). Juridical analysis of an acquittal decision (Ontslag van Alle Rechtsvervolging) through Supreme Court Decision Number 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020 in light of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies. Novum: Jurnal Hukum, 5(1), 320–336. https://ejournal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/novum/article/view/59557

Ali, H. M. (2006). Risk management: Banking strategies and business practices in facing the challenges of business globalization. PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Anandya, D., Ramadhana, K., & Easter, L. (2023). Repositioning the implementation of the business judgment rule principle in corruption cases. Indonesia Corruption Watch.

Appeal Decision with Decision Number 34/Pid.Sus-TPK/2019/PT.DKI.

Article 97 Paragraph 5 of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (UUPT).

Branson, D. (2001). Corporate governance. Anderson Publishing.

Harris, J., & Hargovan, A. (2016). Still a sleepy hollow? Directors' liability and the business judgment rule. Australian Journal of Corporate Law, 31, 319–340.

Heriyanto, & Mustofa. (2020). Legal liability of directors of state-owned banks for bank losses (A study of the Supreme Court Decision of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1144 K/Pid/2006). Al-Hukmi: Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi Syariah dan Keluarga Islam, 1(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.35316/alhukmi.v1i1.739

Indrajaya, N., Nurfransiska, F., & Lutfianidha, R. (2026). Problems in proving state financial losses in corruption crimes involving state-owned enterprises after the distinction between corporate losses and state losses under Law Number 1 of 2025. Jurnal Locus: Penelitian dan Pengabdian, 5(3), 2047–2060. https://doi.org/10.58344/locus.v5i3.5392

Intihani, S. N. (2023). The application of the business judgment rule doctrine in the corruption case of PT Pertamina Director Karen Agustiawan. Jurnal Hukum Jurisdictie, 5(2), 26– 50. https://doi.org/10.34005/jhj.v5i2.134

Januarsyah, M. P. Z., Priyatno, D., Winata, A. S., & Hidayat, K. (2022). The application of the business judgment rule doctrine in the corruption case of Karen Agustiawan. Jurnal Ius Constituendum, 7(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.26623/jic.v7i1.4922

Kawuryan, A. A. P., Alhadi, M. N., & Rahayuningsih, U. (2025). Budget abuse as a form of corruption. TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 5(7), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.47268/tatohi.v5i7.3298

Muhaling, A. J. (2019). Negligence resulting in another person's death under applicable legislation. Lex Crimen, 8(3), 28–38. https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/v3/index.php/lexcrimen/article/view/25628

Muninggar, R. A., & Saleh, R. (2024). Perbandingan sistem hukum Indonesia dan Australia tentang pengaturan pertimbangan bisnis (Business Judgement). UNES Law Review, 6(3), 9104–9113. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i3

Prasetio. (2014). State-owned enterprises dilemma: The conflict in the application of the business judgment rule (BJR) in the business decisions of state-owned enterprise directors (1st ed.). Rayyana Komunikasindo.

Rahardjo, S. (2006). Law in the realm of order. Pers UKI.

Rissy, R. Y. Y. W. (2020). Business judgment rule: Provisions and implementation by courts in England, Canada, and Indonesia. Jurnal Mimbar Hukum, 32(2), 275–293.

Rissy, Y. Y. W. (2020). Business judgment rule provisions and implementation in the United States, Australia, and Indonesia. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 49(2), 160–171.

Sesara, G. W. (2021). The concept of applying the business judgment rule principle to the decisions of directors of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Dharmasisya, 1(1), 213–225.

State Financial Loss Calculation Report from the Public Accounting Office of Drs. Soewarno, Ak.

Sutanto. (2025). Protection of the business judgment rule principle against the criminal liability of directors of state-owned enterprises for business decisions made in the interests of state-owned enterprises. Jurnal Hukum Inkracht, 4(3), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.37721/inkracht.4.3.87

Utrecht, E. (1959). Introduction to Indonesian Law. Ichtiar Baru.

Zulfikar, R. N., & Muryanto, Y. T. (2025). The business judgment rule as a legal protection for directors in managing state-owned enterprise investments (A study of Supreme Court Decision Number 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020). Jurnal Privat Law, 13(2), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.20961/privat.v13i2.52680

Downloads

Published

2026-09-07

How to Cite

Maharani, C. A. D., Odelia, M., Ramadhani, D., & Alhadi, M. N. (2026). Disparity in Applying the Business Judgment Rule: Analysis of Supreme Court Decision No. 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020. Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences, 4(4), 997–1009. https://doi.org/10.38035/gijlss.v4i4.1132

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 4 (2026): (GIJLSS) Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences (September - October 2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Citra Ayu Deswina Maharani, Marsha Odelia, Dina Ramadhani, Muhammad Nurcholis Alhadi

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright :

Authors who publish their manuscripts in this journal agree to the following conditions:

  1. Copyright in each article belongs to the author.
  2. The author acknowledges that the Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences (GIJLSS) has the right to be the first to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0).
  3. Authors can submit articles separately, arrange the non-exclusive distribution of manuscripts that have been published in this journal to other versions (for example, sent to the author's institutional repository, publication in a book, etc.), by acknowledging that the manuscript has been published for the first time at GIJLSS.