<![CDATA[ABSTRACTAn example of beneficial owner liability is seen in the Court Decision No. 231/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel, where Defendant II, as Commissioner, was held jointly liable with Defendant I for material losses, despite personally benefiting from the corporation’s activities. This study aims to analyze the principles of beneficial ownership, the position and responsibilities of Commissioners in franchise agreements, and provide both theoretical and practical contributions to corporate law development and fair dispute resolution in Indonesia. Using a normative legal and case-based approach with qualitative literature analysis, the study finds that Defendant II abused authority by using corporate funds for personal gain, incurring losses and being personally liable under good corporate governance, piercing the corporate veil, derivative action, and inclusive legal theory.Keywords: Liability; Beneficial ownership; Breach of Contract.ABSTRAKContoh tanggung jawab beneficial owner terlihat pada Putusan PN Nomor 231/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Jkt.Sel, di mana Tergugat II selaku Komisaris ikut bertanggung renteng atas kerugian materiil bersama Tergugat I, meskipun manfaat kegiatan korporasi diterimanya sendiri. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis prinsip beneficial ownership, kedudukan dan tanggung jawab Komisaris dalam perjanjian waralaba, serta memberikan kontribusi teoritis dan praktis bagi pengembangan hukum perseroan dan penyelesaian sengketa yang adil di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dan kasus dengan analisis kualitatif studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa Tergugat II, sebagai Komisaris dan beneficial owner, menyalahgunakan wewenang dengan menggunakan dana perseroan untuk kepentingan pribadi, sehingga menimbulkan kerugian, dan dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pribadi sesuai prinsip good corporate governance, doktrin piercing the corporate veil, mekanisme derivative action, dan teori hukum inklusif.Kata Kunci: Tanggung Jawab; Beneficial ownership; Wanprestasi.]]>
