<![CDATA[The exemption of liability for the Board of Directors of the Daya Anagata Investment Management Agency, as stipulated in Article 9 F of Law Number 1 of 2025, raises legal issues regarding the scope of protection for directors, the potential for moral hazard, and the safeguarding of state assets. This study aims to analyze the background of Law Number 1 of 2025, the legal limits of direct liability exemption, the distinction between business losses and state losses, and the provision's alignment with the principle of hifz mal (preservation of wealth) within maqashid syariah (objectives of Sharia) as articulated by As Shatibi. The study employs a normative legal research method utilizing statutory and contextual approaches. Legal materials were gathered through a literature review and analyzed qualitatively using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings indicate that Article 9 F affords legal protection to directors based on the Business Judgment Rule, provided that: the loss did not result from the director's fault or negligence; management was conducted in good faith and with due care; there was no conflict of interest; and efforts were made to prevent the occurrence or escalation of the loss. Business losses arising from reasonable commercial risks must be distinguished from state losses associated with legal violations or the abuse of authority. From the perspective of hifz mal, protecting directors can support the optimization of state assets, yet it cannot eliminate oversight and legal accountability. Therefore, the application of Article 9 F must be rigorous, transparent, and accountable to strike a balance between legal certainty for directors and the protection of state assets for the public good.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
