<![CDATA[This study examines the phenomenon of economic crimes and consumer rights violations in the form of actions by government-registered business actors who convey false or misleading information regarding the prices of commodities under supervision. This study focuses on the ratio decidendi of the panel of judges in Kotabaru District Court Decision Number 79/Pid.Sus/2023/PN.Ktb, which implicated an official retail kiosk owner for selling subsidized urea fertilizer above the Highest Retail Price (HET) set by the state. Although the defendant's actions fulfilled all the elements of a formal crime under Article 62 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 10 letter a of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection, which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, the panel of judges instead sentenced him to a minimum fine of Rp5,000,000.00 (five million rupiah). The research method used is normative legal research (doctrinal legal research) with a case approach and a statute approach. The legal materials were analyzed qualitatively using Consumer Protection Theory and Legal Application Theory to test the judicial rationality of the decision. The results indicate that the defendant's actions constitute a formal delict, where the business actor's criminal liability is complete from the moment the misleading statement is made at the actual transaction level, regardless of the actual loss. Second, the ratio decidendi analysis revealed that the judge's legal reasoning was dominated by a narrow utilitarian bias. The judge exploited external excuses such as geographical logistical constraints to maintain the kiosk's operational continuity, thereby ignoring normative legal certainty. Third, the legal implications of this decision are highly counterproductive because they eliminate the deterrent effect, trigger moral hazard in the form of condoning similar crimes at the regional level, and fail to provide substantive legal protection for smallholder farmers due to the absence of a restitution clause (restitutio in integrum) in the decision. This study recommends reforming sanctions by implementing specific minimum sentences to limit judicial discretion in public economic crimes.]]>
