The Problematic of Bankruptcy Offenses in Affirming the Parameters Between Business Failure and Fraudulent Bankruptcy in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47134/jcl.v3i3.1.5786Keywords:
Bankruptcy, Criminal Offense, Legal Reform, Legal Certainty, JusticeAbstract
Bankruptcy criminal offenses are legal instruments that function to maintain trust in economic activities and to protect the interests of creditors from fraudulent acts by debtors. In the Indonesian legal system, regulations concerning bankruptcy are related to Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, which is oriented towards civil and procedural aspects, as well as the National Criminal Code through Law Number 1 of 2023, which links criminal liability to bankruptcy conditions, including for business actors and corporations. Nevertheless, these regulations still give rise to fundamental problems in the form of a normative gap regarding the absence of clear parameters to distinguish between legitimate business failure and bankruptcy involving elements of fraud. This normative gap has implications for legal uncertainty in determining the limits of criminal liability, and it has the potential to lead to the criminalization of entrepreneurs acting in good faith or to suboptimal law enforcement against fraudulent acts in bankruptcy. This research aims to (1) analyzing the normative gaps in the regulation of criminal bankruptcy offenses related to the distinguishing parameters between business risk and criminal acts, as well as (2) Studying the concept of reforming bankruptcy criminal offenses in a fair manner within the Indonesian legal system. The research method used is normative juridical with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. Therefore, it is necessary to add and reinforce regulations regarding indicators of bad faith as well as distinguishing parameters between business failure and fraudulent bankruptcy, accompanied by the development of an adaptive and proportional law enforcement mechanism, in order to realize legal certainty and justice within the bankruptcy legal system.
References
Ababil, M. A. 2025. “Perlindungan Kreditur Dalam Sistem Kepailitan Indonesia: Antara Norma Hukum Dan Kenyataan, 38–53.”
Afdhali, D. R., Syahuri, T., & Universitas Veteran JAkarta. 2023. “Idealitas Penegakkan Hukum Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Teori Tujuan Hukum. 6(2), 555–561.”
Ariel, Y., Tambunan, A., & Universitas Udayana. 2025. “Digital. 15(4), 1–14.”
Cong, L., & Hasan, Z. 2025. “Upaya Pencegahan Tindak Pidana Fraud Di Perusahaan. 3.”
Dalle, A., Gultom, E. R., & Trisakti, U. 2023. “Itikad Buruk Direksi Perseroan Terbatas Dalam Sengketa Utang Piutang Yang Berakibat Kepailitan. JISIP, 7(1), 399–405. Https://Doi.Org/10.58258/Jisip.V7i1.4291.”
Dan, H. K., Sulisrudatin, N., & Ip, S. 1997. “Hukum Kepailitan Dan Permasalahannya Di Indonesia. 7(1), 158–173.”
Dewa, M. J., Tatawu, G., Sensu, L., Haris, O. K., Sinapoy, M. S., & Rasak, R. N. 2024. “Implementasi Teori the New Separation of Power Dalam Sistem Kelembagaan Negara Di Indonesia. 6(2), 432–448.”
Fauziyah, D. K., et al. 2025. “Analisis Dugaan Strategi Korporasi Dalam Menyamarkan Praktik Kepailitan Melalui Skema Kebangkrutan Fiktif. 2(2), 4409–4420.”
Hukum, P., et al. 2024. “Jurnal Riset Ilmiah. 1(8), 599–609.”
Idris, M. F. 2026. “Tindak Pidana Dalam Kepailitan Dan PKPU. Yayasan Prima.”
Jailani, M., Faisal, M., & Kunci, K. 2024. “Sistem Pembuktian Pidana Pada Pelanggaran Hukum Lingkungan Di Indonesia. 10, 512–519.”
Marzuki, P. M. 2019. “Penelitian Hukum (Edisi Revisi). Kencana.”
Muhammad, Al Kautsar and. 2022. “Sistem Hukum Modern Lawrence M. Friedman: Budaya Hukum Dan Perubahan Sosial Masyarakat Dari Industrial Ke Digital. 7(1), 84–99.”
Nasyith, R. M., Wiranatakusumah, R. D., Augustine, T., & Harapan, U. P. 2025. “Reformasi Sistem Kepailitan Indonesia Dalam Hukum Bagi Kreditor Dan Debitor. 5(2), 152–163.”
Pratama, F., & Saputra, I. 2024. “Sistem Pembuktian Dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia Dan Tantangan Dalam Proses Peradilan. 1(3), 279–292.”
Progresif, P., et al. 2025. “Konflik Kewenangan Antar Lembaga Negara Dalam Ketatanegaraan Indonesia. 2, September.”
Putra, N. A., & Universitas Pakuan Bogor. 2026. “Kekosongan Hukum Dalam Regulasi Bisnis Digital Di Indonesia. 13(1), 118–130.”
Remaja, N. G. 2014. “Kertha Widya, 2(1), 1–26.”
Romadhoni, K., Rosidin, U., & Abdul, M. 2025. “Urgensi Pembaharuan Hukum Melalui Pendekatan Ius Constitutum Dan Ius Constituendum Pada Tindak Pidana Dalam Kegiatan Bisnis Di Indonesia. Al-Mustla: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Keislaman Dan Kemasyarakatan, 7, 678–701. Https://Doi.Org/10.46870/Jstain.V7i2.1953.”
Setiawan, D., Juna, A. M., & Fadillah, M. S. 2024. “Prinsip Proporsionalitas Dalam Penerapan Hukuman Pidana Di Indonesia. 1(3), 266–278.”
Siahaan, G. P., Ginting, B., & Siregar, M. 2024. “Akibat Hukum Kepailitan Perseroan Terbatas Yang Diakibatkan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Yang Dilakukan Oleh Direksi. 3(3), 251–265.”
Siregar, M. 2024. “Teori Hukum Progresif Dalam Konsep Negara Hukum Indonesia. 8(2).”
Sitompul, L. P. 2025. “Dalam Sistem Hukum Kepailitan Dan Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia. 2337, 1192–1203.”
Vigianto, A. 2024. “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Bagi Kurator. Morality: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 10(1), 117–128.”
Waruwu, E., Sudiro, A., & Universitas Tarumanagara. 2025. “Creditorum Dalam Pelaksanaan Kepailitan. 13(10), 2376–2386.”
Yuniawaty, Y. 2025. “Kenaikan Tarif Pajak Pertambahan Nilai (PPN) Dikaitkan Dengan Kemanfaatan Hukum. 8(4), 974–985.”
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lalu Bayu, Dwi Kusumo Wardhani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
