<![CDATA[The Supreme Court Decision Number 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020 which released Karen Agustiawan from all legal charges (ontslag van alle rechtsvervolging) despite causing state losses of Rp568,066,000,000.00 is based on the application of the business judgment rule (BJR), because the defendant's actions were deemed to be in the interests of the company and did not contain elements of fraud, conflict of interest, unlawful acts, or intent. This decision differs from the first-level and appeal decisions which stated that the criminal elements in the subsidiary charges had been fulfilled due to negligence and deviations in the directors' decision-making, thus indicating a disparity in the application of BJR as regulated in Article 97 paragraph (5) of the Limited Liability Company Law. This research uses a normative legal research method by examining Decision Number 121 K/Pid.Sus/2020 through a case approach and a comparative approach. A comparative approach was conducted by comparing two cassation decisions related to similar criminal cases, namely a decision that applies BJR and a decision that does not apply BJR, and comparing the application of BJR in Indonesia and Australia. The results of the study indicate inconsistencies in the application of BJR in Indonesia due to different interpretations of Article 97 Paragraph 5, which leads to disparities in the considerations and court decisions regarding the responsibilities of directors.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
