<![CDATA[This study examines the elements of business conspiracy and the effectiveness of administrative sanctions imposed by the Indonesian Competition Commission (KPPU) in Decision Number 08/KPPU-L/2024, as well as compares them with the United States Antitrust Law framework. The research is motivated by the limited deterrent effect and lack of legal certainty for victims of unfair business competition in Indonesia, particularly in conspiracy cases causing substantial losses. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, case, and comparative approaches by analyzing Law Number 5 of 1999 and its implementing regulations alongside the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The findings reveal that all elements of business conspiracy in Decision 08/KPPU-L/2024 were legally established; however, the administrative sanctions imposed were disproportionate to the losses incurred, did not include individual liability, and failed to provide direct restitution mechanisms for injured parties. Consequently, administrative sanctions have not functioned effectively as deterrence and legal protection instruments. The novelty of this study lies in its comparative analysis, positioning private enforcement and victim restitution under U.S. Antitrust Law as benchmarks for strengthening Indonesia’s administrative sanction regime. This study recommends enhancing KPPU’s authority, extending sanctions to both corporations and individuals, and establishing clear restitution mechanisms to ensure legal certainty and substantive justice in competition law enforcement. Penelitian ini menganalisis unsur persekongkolan usaha dan efektivitas penerapan sanksi administratif oleh Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) dalam Putusan Nomor 08/KPPU-L/2024, serta membandingkannya dengan rezim Antitrust Law Amerika Serikat. Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh masih lemahnya efek jera dan ketidakpastian hukum bagi korban praktik persaingan usaha tidak sehat di Indonesia, khususnya dalam perkara persekongkolan yang menimbulkan kerugian signifikan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, kasus, dan perbandingan melalui analisis Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, peraturan pelaksananya, serta Sherman Act, Clayton Act, dan Federal Trade Commission Act. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa seluruh unsur persekongkolan usaha dalam Putusan 08/KPPU-L/2024 telah terpenuhi secara sah, namun penjatuhan sanksi administratif berupa denda dinilai tidak proporsional dengan kerugian yang ditimbulkan, tidak disertai sanksi terhadap individu pelaku, serta tidak memberikan mekanisme pemulihan langsung bagi pihak yang dirugikan. Kondisi ini menyebabkan tujuan sanksi administratif sebagai instrumen efek jera dan perlindungan hukum belum tercapai secara optimal. Kebaruan penelitian ini terletak pada analisis komparatif yang menempatkan private enforcement dan restitusi korban dalam Antitrust Law Amerika Serikat sebagai tolok ukur untuk memperkuat sistem sanksi administratif di Indonesia. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan penguatan kewenangan KPPU, pengenaan sanksi terhadap korporasi dan individu, serta perumusan mekanisme restitusi langsung guna mewujudkan kepastian hukum dan keadilan substantif dalam penegakan hukum persaingan usaha.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
