Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum
Dhananjaya, I Putu Lingga
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
The Role Of A Notary In Preventing Money Laundering Dharsana, I Made Pria; Kresnadjaja, Indrasari; Dhananjaya, I Putu Lingga; Rini, Rizky Mustika
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 22 No. 001 (2023): Pena Justisia (Special Issue)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v22i3.3089

Abstract

The Notary's participation in preventing money laundering is to report to PPATK when they know of suspicious financial transactions related to the deed they made. The Notary's position as a whistleblower in the event of suspected suspicious financial transactions as an effort to prevent money laundering has not violated the principle of confidentiality of position. Instead, the Notary must apply the precautionary principle. Notary as the reporting party is an implementation of its obligations stipulated in Article 16 paragraph (1) point an of UUJN, namely acting trustfully and honestly. The State appoints notaries to serve the public in civil Law. Therefore Notaries must also take care not to let the State be harmed by attempts to disguise money from criminal acts. Notaries with this submit to higher interests. This is so that Notaries do not get involved in money laundering cases because they are considered to help carry out a criminal act
Implementation of the Principle of Business Judgement Rule Doctrine to State-Owned Companies as an Effort to Protect Directors in Good Faith Dharsana, I Made Pria; Kresnadjaja, Indrasari; Dhananjaya, I Putu Lingga
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 22 No. 2 (2023): Pena Justisia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v22i2.3090

Abstract

The Business Judgement Rule is a doctrine that protects Directors in good faith for the Company's losses. The point is that as long as the Board of Directors acts in good faith and solely for the Company's benefit. However, it turns out that the Company still suffers losses. It does not necessarily become the burden of the Board of Directors personal responsibility. Therefore, the Board of Directors cannot be held responsible for the Company's losses if the Board of Directors, in carrying out actions, has fulfilled all its obligations with the principles of good corporate Governance (GCG). If all GCG obligations and principles have been fulfilled, the Board of Directors is categorized as having good faith and cannot be declared wrong. The results of the author's study, in the context of the Business Judgment Rule Doctrine, the losses incurred are normal or reasonable business losses, and therefore the Company is responsible. And no one can be punished if there is no mistake. With the background of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 01/PHPUPres/XVII/2019 (Constitutional Court Decision 01) and two Supreme Court Decisions, the author tries to examine in more detail related to Decision No. 3849/K/Pid.Sus/2019 dated December 2, 2019, on behalf of Defendant Frederick ST Siahaan (former Finance Director of Pertamina) / (Supreme Court Decision 3849) and Decision No. 121K/Pid.Sus/2020 dated March 9, 2020, on behalf of Defendant Karen Agustiawan (former President Director of Pertamina).
Co-Authors I Made Pria Dharsana, I Made Pria Kresnadjaja, Indrasari Rini, Rizky Mustika