<![CDATA[The criminalisation of failed business activities raises a persistent challenge in economic criminal law: distinguishing legitimate commercial risk from conduct that satisfies the elements of a criminal offence. This problem is particularly relevant in cooperative and financial activities where losses may result from liquidity problems, mismanagement, regulatory violations, or fraudulent conduct. This study examines Supreme Court Decision No. 2113 K/Pid.Sus/2023 concerning Henry Surya to analyse the boundary between business risk and criminal liability in a failed cooperative payment scheme. The Supreme Court's official directory classifies the case under special criminal offences concerning banking and records that the decision was rendered on 16 May 2023. The study aims to identify the criteria used by the court to distinguish civil or commercial failure from criminal conduct and to assess the role of intent, regulatory obligations, and financial representations in establishing criminal responsibility. A normative juridical approach is adopted through statutory, conceptual, and case analysis. The research examines banking and cooperative regulations, criminal-law principles, and the judicial reasoning underlying the decision. The study argues that financial losses alone should not automatically generate criminal liability. Criminalisation requires proof of conduct satisfying specific statutory elements, including unlawful acts and the requisite mental element where applicable. The case illustrates the importance of maintaining a principled boundary between commercial risk and criminal fraud while ensuring accountability for conduct that deliberately undermines financial trust.]]>
