Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Journal of Law and Legal Reform Lex Scientia Law Review
Shintaro Tokuyama
Ray of Light Incorporation Japan
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
The Extended Nature of Trading Norms Between Cryptocurrency and Crypto-asset: Evidence from Indonesia and Japan Fajar Sugianto; Shintaro Tokuyama
Lex Scientia Law Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2024): Contemporary Legal Challenges and Solutions in a Global Context
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/lslr.v8i1.14063

Abstract

This article is evidently about the comparison between Indonesia and Japan and their views on Crypto as a commodity. It starts with a brief elaboration on the legal standing of cryptocurrency in Indonesia and Japan. In Indonesia, Cryptocurrency is legal only as a commodity as the Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 99 of 2018 formally authorized crypto asset trading and decreed it lawful. The Indonesian Commodity Futures Trading Supervisory Authority, or BAPPEBTI, published Regulation No. 5 of 2019 to provide a thorough regulatory framework for the crypto-assets future. In Japan, there is no omnibus law regulating blockchain based coins and the legal status of tokens are determined under the uses and functions. News outlets report that there may be in talks of a law of the possibility of the seizure of crypto that has been stolen or has been illegally acquired by organized crime due to the law of the type of assets that can be seized are physical property, monetary claims, and movable assets such as machinery, vehicles, tools, and supplies, with crypto falling under none of those categories. The conclusions are, first, Indonesia has vastly improved its Cryptocurrency regulations with BAPPEBTI’s Regulation No. 8 of 2021. with the implementation of (a) licensing requirements; (b) rights and obligations; and (c) the responsibilities of key players involved in the physical crypto-asset market, such as futures exchanges, crypto asset traders, futures clearing agencies, and crypto-asset storage providers. Second, Indonesia’s regulations almost mirror itself with Japan’s behavior towards crypto, with differences only arising in the specific percentages of storage, equity, and infrastructure.
False Transaction vs Wash Trading: Addressing the Gap to Rebuild Market Confidence (Legal Implication in Indonesia and United States Capital Market Law) Fajar Sugianto; Shintaro Tokuyama
Journal of Law and Legal Reform Vol. 5 No. 1 (2024): Contemporary Global Issues on Law Reform, Legal Certainty, and Justice
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/jllr.vol5i1.2094

Abstract

This paper is evidently about the legal comparison between Indonesia and the U.S on their views on market manipulation. There are several similarities between the Capital Market Law and SEA 1934, not only in terms but also in the elements. Articles 91 and 92 of Capital Market Law seem to mimic Section 9(a) (1) and (2) of SEA 1934. As both statues states similar prohibition in creating a misleading trading appearance and the purpose of inducing sales. This means that elements and tests applicable in the U.S. should also be applicable in Indonesia. Section 10(b) of SEA 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 serves to further supplement the application of Section 9 with its broad anti-manipulation provisions. Articles 91 and 92 of Capital Market Law cover the sales and purchase of stocks affected by the alleged manipulation that occurs only in the securities exchange as evident by the wording “on a/the Securities Exchange”. This is also observed in Section 9(a) (1) and (2) of SEA 1934 wherein the scope is limited to transactions in the “national securities exchange”. What this implies is that over-the-counter and block sales transactions are not protected under the statutes mentioned above. This issue is not addressed under the Capital Market Law, however Section 10(b) of SEA 1934 and its implementing regulation SEC Rule 10b-5 addresses this issue. Section 10(b) of SEA 1934 allows for broader authority of law enforcement as it includes “any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered”. This implies protection for a wider scope of securities transactions.
Co-Authors Fajar Sugianto