ANALISIS KEDUDUKAN PRINSIP BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (BJR) DALAM PENILAIAN UNSUR KESALAHAN DIREKSI BUMN PADA PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI OLEH HAKIM

Abstract

The application of the Business Judgment Rule (BJR) doctrine in Indonesia's criminal justice system remains inconsistent, particularly in distinguishing reasonable business risk from corruption. Judicial inconsistency in applying BJR to directors of state-owned enterprises (BUMN) has led to the criminalization of legitimate business decisions. This study examines the legal parameters judges use in applying BJR to corruption cases involving company directors, and assesses directors' criminal liability under the principle of geen straf zonder schuld (no punishment without fault). Using a normative juridical method with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, this study analyzes legal materials through prescriptive literature review. Findings show that judicial application of BJR remains casuistic, lacking consistent jurisprudence, as evidenced in four decisions: No. 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020, No. 49/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PT.SBY, No. 6/Pid.Sus-TPK/2022/PT.DKI, and No. 41 PK/Pid.Sus/2015. BJR applies only where directors cumulatively fulfill Article 97(5) of the Company Law, serving as justification under Article 31 of the new Criminal Code. Criminal liability requires proof of mens rea. The study recommends the Supreme Court issue technical guidelines to standardize BJR implementation.