Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal SIGn Jurnal Hukum Journal of Social Research
Wilhelmina Setia Atmadja
Universitas Pelita Harapan, Indonesia
Humanities Computer Science & IT Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Restriction of Civil Liability for Beneficial Owners in Bankruptcy Disputes Arising from Homologation Default: An Analysis of the Separate Corporate Veil Doctrine Keisha Nadine Sastraatmaja; Laela Kuwayyis Wijaya; Maheswari Queena Dewani; Thenezia Tania Tirajoh; Valence Deanthony Dior; Wilhelmina Setia Atmadja
SIGn Jurnal Hukum Vol 8 No 1: April - September 2026
Publisher : CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37276/sjh.v8i1.671

Abstract

The bankruptcy of PT Sritex, resulting from a homologation default, has sparked a debate over creditors’ efforts to demand liability beyond the protective boundaries of the corporate entity. This research aims to critically examine the limitations of separate corporate veil protection and analyze the position of beneficial owners in bankruptcy disputes arising from debt restructuring failure. Through normative legal research employing statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the analysis is conducted deductively using the legal hermeneutics method to examine civil regulatory instruments. The research findings show that the annulment of homologation constitutes a mere civil default that does not immediately deprive the legal entity of its independence. Contract creditors are hindered by an absolute burden of proof, under which the piercing of the corporate veil doctrine is rejected without material evidence of unlawful acts or the misuse of the corporate entity. Furthermore, the beneficial owner status is dogmatically identified exclusively as an administrative compliance instrument within the public law domain. This administrative determination lacks the juridical force to annul the limited liability principle in civil bankruptcy without the proof of actual loss causality. In conclusion, the debt liability of a bankrupt company cannot be automatically imposed on the personal wealth of shareholders or beneficial owners. This legal certainty demands that the judiciary tighten evidentiary standards to protect the limited-risk investment climate in Indonesia.
Fault-Based Liability Vs. Strict Liability: Comparative Study of the Concept of Unlawful Acts Indonesia – Japan Wilhelmina Setia Atmadja; Gavra Datadavie Ginting; Maheswari Queena Dewani; Jason Marvin Wijaya; Rastra Judea Satyawada Pattiwael; Yudhiran R. V. M. Demonggreng
Journal of Social Research Vol. 4 No. 11 (2025): Journal of Social Research
Publisher : International Journal Labs

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55324/josr.v4i10.2825

Abstract

This research analyzes the comparative concepts of fault-based liability and strict liability in torts under Indonesian and Japanese civil law. Although both jurisdictions adopt the European-Continental legal system, the approaches to liability reflect different historical, political, and social contexts. The research employs a normative (doctrinal) juridical approach, supported by secondary legal materials. Findings show that fault-based liability, as codified under Article 1365 of the Civil Code and Article 700 of the Civil Code of Japan, remains the general principle in determining liability, placing the burden of proof on plaintiffs. However, strict liability has emerged in special laws, particularly in consumer protection and environmental law. Landmark cases such as PT Newmont Minahasa Raya in Indonesia and the Minamata case in Japan illustrate the challenges and transitions between these two liability regimes. The study concludes that a balanced dual approach is necessary. Fault-based liability ensures legal certainty and fairness for defendants, while strict liability strengthens victim protection and deterrence. Ultimately, harmonizing both principles enhances access to justice, accommodates social needs, and aligns with global legal trends.
Co-Authors Gavra Datadavie Ginting Jason Marvin Wijaya Keisha Nadine Sastraatmaja Laela Kuwayyis Wijaya Maheswari Queena Dewani Rastra Judea Satyawada Pattiwael Thenezia Tania Tirajoh Valence Deanthony Dior Yudhiran R. V. M. Demonggreng