<![CDATA[This study examines the effectiveness of Indonesian bankruptcy judgments in reaching debtors’ assets located abroad and identifies the structural gaps affecting cross-border insolvency administration. It employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Judicial decisions issued in 2023–2024 were selected purposively based on their availability in the Supreme Court Decision Directory, representation of bankruptcy and suspension-of-debt-payment proceedings, availability of official texts or metadata, and relevance to estate administration and creditor recovery. The analysis shows that the phrase “all assets of the debtor” in Article 21 of Law Number 37 of 2004 provides broad normative coverage, while Articles 16 and 69 are not accompanied by operational mechanisms for access to foreign courts, recognition of proceedings, relief, and court-to-court cooperation. Doing Business 2020 is therefore used only as a measure of domestic procedural efficiency, not as direct evidence of cross-border enforcement capacity. A comparison with the United States, Singapore, and the United Kingdom indicates that Indonesia can adopt procedural elements concerning access, recognition, relief, cooperation, public policy, and creditor protection, while adjusting creditor priorities, court structure, and domestic doctrines to the national legal system. In Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2024] SGHC(I) 1 demonstrates that an Indonesian proceeding may obtain recognition under the law of the forum, but also reveals an institutional asymmetry because Indonesia lacks an equivalent reciprocal mechanism. The study proposes the Cross-Border Insolvency Gap Framework, comprising normative-scope, access, recognition-relief, coordination, and institutional-enforcement gaps, and recommends the gradual adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law alongside stronger judicial and trustee capacity.]]>
