Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia JIHAD : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Administrasi
Wawan Zulmawan
Universitas Pelita Harapan
Humanities Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Bank's Legal Responsibility in Detecting Shadow Controller-Related Beneficial Owner Wawan Zulmawan; Daniel Johnson Goenawan; Marchello Putra Toding Palilli; Ramdhan Mahardika Nasyith; Muhamad Naufal Rionatadiraja; Reyzel Yandika Lim; Triswer Triswer
JIHAD : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Administrasi Vol. 8 No. 2 (2026): JIHAD : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Administrasi
Publisher : Lembaga Penelitian dan Pendidikan (LPP) Mandala

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.58258/jihad.v8i2.10612

Abstract

Transparency of legal entity ownership through reporting Beneficial Owner (BO) to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights is an important policy in preventing Money Laundering. However, the practice of shadow controllers, parties who de facto control a legal entity but are not reported as BO, remains a serious loophole. Banks as gatekeepers of the financial system have a strategic position to detect shadow controllers. This article aims to analyze the legal liability of banks for failing to detect shadow controllers, the sanctions that may be imposed, and the standard of proof for constructive knowledge. This research uses normative legal method with statutory and conceptual approaches, examining the Banking Law (Law No. 7/1992 as amended by Law No. 4/2023 on P2SK), Anti-Money Laundering Law No. 8/2010, OJK Regulation No. 8/2023 on APU-PPT, and Ministry of Law Regulations No. 2/2025 and No. 49/2025 on corporate BO. The results show that bank liability is fault-based, not strict liability. Banks that ignore indications of shadow controllers may be subject to administrative sanctions (reprimands to license revocation), civil sanctions (damages claims), and criminal sanctions. The standard of proof for constructive knowledge uses objective indicators such as suspicious transactions, complex ownership structures, and discrepancies between official documents and customer operational reality, measured by the reasonableness principle (prudent banker). This article recommends that banks act proactively by conducting independent verification beyond merely relying on the Ministry's BO reports, and strengthen early detection systems against shadow controllers.
Analisis Penerapan Business Judgment Rule terhadap Tanggung Jawab Direksi BUMN dalam Kasus PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry Wawan Zulmawan; Ariel Alexander; Boy Gabriel Yohanes Simarmata; Dyo Ganda Siadari
Syntax Literate Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia
Publisher : Syntax Corporation

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36418/syntax-literate.v11i5.64321

Abstract

Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh meningkatnya kasus hukum yang melibatkan direksi Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN), khususnya terkait pengambilan keputusan bisnis yang dikaitkan dengan doktrin Business Judgment Rule (BJR). Dalam praktiknya, BJR sering dipahami sebagai bentuk perlindungan hukum terhadap direksi, namun penerapannya tidak bersifat absolut dan tetap memiliki batasan. Kasus PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry menjadi contoh konkret bagaimana keputusan bisnis direksi dapat dipersoalkan secara hukum meskipun tidak selalu didasarkan pada niat jahat. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis batasan penerapan BJR, menilai tanggung jawab direksi atas penyimpangan prosedur, serta menguji apakah tindakan direksi dalam kasus tersebut memenuhi unsur-unsur BJR. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa BJR hanya dapat diterapkan apabila direksi memenuhi prinsip itikad baik, kehati-hatian, tidak adanya konflik kepentingan, serta keputusan yang didasarkan pada informasi yang memadai dan prosedur yang sah. Pelanggaran terhadap prosedur, meskipun tanpa niat jahat dan bahkan menghasilkan keuntungan, tetap dapat menghilangkan perlindungan BJR. Oleh karena itu, penerapan BJR harus dilakukan secara proporsional agar tidak disalahgunakan sebagai tameng untuk menghindari tanggung jawab hukum.
Co-Authors Ariel Alexander Boy Gabriel Yohanes Simarmata Daniel Johnson Goenawan Dyo Ganda Siadari Marchello Putra Toding Palilli Muhamad Naufal Rionatadiraja Ramdhan Mahardika Nasyith Reyzel Yandika Lim Triswer Triswer