Perlindungan Hukum Kreditor terhadap Praktik Asset Stripping dalam Restrukturisasi Grup Perusahaan Multinasional: Studi Doktrin Cross-Border Insolvency dan Piercing the Corporate Veil Legal Protection of Creditors against Asset Stripping Practices in the Restructuring of Multinational Corporate Groups: A Study of the Doctrines of Cross-Border Insolvency and Piercing the Corporate Veil
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
3169-3198
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/yasin.v6i3.10267
Viewed: 52 times
Downloaded: 45 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:Afandono Cahyo Putranto1*, Fakhrul Ardiyan2, Irvandi Irvandi3, Riski Ari Wibowo4, Diani Sadiawati5
Copyright :Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Legal protection for creditors against asset stripping practices in the restructuring of multinational corporate groups has become an important issue because asset depletion by foreign parent companies can weaken creditors’ position in bankruptcy and corporate restructuring processes. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of cross-border insolvency and the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in providing legal protection for creditors, particularly in the context of the limitations of Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) in regulating cross-border bankruptcy and asset stripping practices. This study uses a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and functional comparative approaches to the legal systems of Indonesia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The results show that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in Indonesian law has not been able to reach foreign parent companies that systematically conduct asset stripping against subsidiaries in Indonesia because of the limitations of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the absence of an adequate cross-border insolvency mechanism. In addition, the reconstruction of national bankruptcy law needs to be directed toward the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997, the expansion of cross-border actio pauliana mechanisms, the strengthening of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil with extraterritorial elements, and the regulation of substantive consolidation for multinational business groups. The conclusion of this study affirms that creditor protection in the restructuring of multinational corporate groups requires a hybrid regulatory model that integrates cross-border insolvency mechanisms into the Indonesian bankruptcy law system while maintaining national legal characteristics and needs. These findings provide a theoretical contribution to the development of cross-border bankruptcy law and practical implications for policymakers in strengthening creditor protection against asset stripping practices in multinational corporate structures.
Citation Metrics:
Downloads
Article Details
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Abbott, M., & Cohen, B. (2014). A survey of the privatisation of government-owned enterprises in Australia since the 1980s. Australian Economic Review, 47(4), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12072
Abramson, J. L. (2023, July 19). Hoax, fraud, plagiarism, forgery. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.1070
Anhar, D. A., & Kurniawan, S. (2024). Ketidakpastian Hukum dalam Kembalinya TikTok Shop sebagai Platform Social Commerce di Indonesia. UNES Law Review, 6(3), 8963–8976. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i3.1788
Arsitaningrum, A. (2023). Urgensi Lembaga Insolvency Test atas Perkara Kepailitan di Indonesia Berdasarkan Asas Perlindungan yang Seimbang [Thesis, Universitas Islam Indonesia]. https://dspace.uii.ac.id/handle/123456789/47727
Asri, A. (2017). Doktrin Piercing the Corporate Veil dalam Pertanggung Jawaban Direksi Perseroan Terbatas. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Dirgantara, 8(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.35968/jh.v8i1.138
Benedetti, L. (2023). Third party release in group-wide restructuring proceedings: Comparative remarks to support the application of such a rule in the Italian legal system. European Company and Financial Law Review, 20(5–6), 913–935. https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2023-0034
Bitė, V., Mogenytė, V., & Mulevičienė, S. (2022). Civil liability of a company director in the vicinity of insolvency: The Lithuanian approach. European Business Organization Law Review, 23(2), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-022-00240-8
Boermans, M. (2026). A literature review of securities holdings statistics research and a practitioner’s guide. Journal of Economic Surveys, 40(2), 632–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.70012
Bongini, P. A., Mattassoglio, F., Pedrazzoli, A., & Vismara, S. (2025). Crypto ecosystem: Navigating the past, present, and future of decentralized finance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 50, 2054–2075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10186-x
Bull, S. (2014). Piercing the corporate veil—in England and Singapore. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 24–40. https://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2024/07/2147-2014-sjls-jul-24.pdf
Carvalho, D. (2022). The portfolio holdings of euro area investors: Looking through investment funds. Journal of International Money and Finance, 120, Article 102519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2021.102519
Cheng, P. (2025). Why veil piercing differs: Reassessing judicial trends under China’s new company law. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 13, Article cxag003. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxag003
Dewi, S. (2018). Mengenal Doktrin dan Prinsip Piercing the Corporate Veil dalam Hukum Perusahaan. Soumatera Law Review, 1(2), 380–399. https://doi.org/10.22216/soumlaw.v1i2.3744
Elvy, S.-A. (2017). Hybrid transactions and the Internet of Things: Goods, services, or software? Washington and Lee Law Review, 74(1), 77–172. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol74/iss1/4
Fergus, D., & Shanks, T. R. (2022). The long afterlife of slavery in asset stripping, historical memory, and family burden: Toward a third Reconstruction. Families in Society, 103(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894211061283
Fhadillah, Z., Ayu Astiti, N. M. Y., Cholil, M., Alfan, M. A., & Aliefia, M. (2023). Problematika Kepailitan Transnasional terhadap Pengurusan dan Pemberesan Aset Debitur Pailit. Notaire, 6(2), 307–324. https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/NTR/article/view/43545
Gayathri, S., & Aieshwaryaa, N. (2023). Analysing the contours of cross-border insolvency within the Indian legal framework. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 5(2), 1. https://www.ijllr.com/post/analysing-the-contours-of-cross-border-insolvency-within-the-indian-legal-framework
Goswami, D., & Godwin, A. (2024). India’s journey towards cross-border insolvency law reform. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 19(2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2024.12
Justia. (1967). Zaist v. Olson. Law.Justia.com. https://law.justia.com/cases/connecticut/supreme-court/1967/154-conn-563-2.html
Kanekar, V. U. (2022). Critical analysis of cross-border insolvency under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code 2016. Jus Corpus Law Journal, 3, 1.
Kirshner, J. A., & Chatard, Y. (2023). Cross-border insolvency under the UNCITRAL Model Laws and the European Insolvency Regulation. In R. Gulati, T. John, & B. Köhler (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to UNCITRAL (pp. 428–441). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/abstract/book/9781803924540/book-part-9781803924540-33.xml
Lingga, W. S., Maryano, M., & Mustofa, M. E. (2025). Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Kreditur Konkuren atas Harta Pailit Debitor yang Disita Pidana. CENDEKIA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmiah, 2(6), 898–911. https://doi.org/10.62335/cendekia.v2i6.1437
Maha, H., & Lubis, S. D. (2023). Analisis Yuridis Actio Pauliana terhadap Penyitaan Boedel Pailit: Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 560 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2021. UNES Law Review, 6(1), 1378–1386. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i1.902
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. Prenada Media.
McCormack, G. (2024). Extra-territoriality and the UK Insolvency Act 1986. Legal Studies, 44(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2023.15
Michael, D. C. (2025). Confronting the duty to capitalize in veil-piercing. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 93(4), 1034. https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol93/iss4/4
Moustaira, E. (2025). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Insolvency Judgements According to UNCITRAL Model Law 1997.
Mutha, S. (2023). Role of shadow directors. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, 3(3), 96–103. https://ijirl.com/volume-iii-issue-iii
Najah, L., Nurhasanah, V., Rayana, N. A., & Sapitri, N. (2023). Analisis Actio Pauliana sebagai Upaya Kurator dalam Kepailitan Kasus Penyitaan Rumah oleh Bank: Studi Kasus Penyitaan Rumah oleh Bank. Diponegoro Private Law Review, 7(2), 122–141. https://ejournal2.undip.ac.id/index.php/dplr/article/view/21121
Parulina, J. R., Dwiwarno, N., & Paulus, D. H. (2023). Upaya Pemulihan Aset (Asset Recovery) Lintas Batas Negara di Wilayah Asia Tenggara. Diponegoro Law Journal, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.14710/dlj.2023.35447
Pratama, D. A. (2022). Penerapan Doktrin Piercing the Corporate Veil terhadap Negara pada Holding Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Dharmasisya: Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI, 2(2), Article 40. https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/dharmasisya/vol2/iss2/40
Putri, S. M., & Rustam, M. R. (2025). Tinjauan Hukum terhadap Jaminan Harta Pihak Ketiga dalam Kepailitan yang Dijadikan Harta Pailit oleh Kurator. Jembatan Hukum: Kajian Ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Administrasi Negara, 2(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.62383/jembatan.v2i1.1220
Rahmi, A. (2024). Kedudukan dan Pertanggungjawaban Perdata Perseroan Terbatas Perorangan sebagai Subjek Hukum = Position and Civil Liability of Individual Limited Liability Companies as a Legal Subjects [Skripsi, Universitas Hasanuddin]. https://repository.unhas.ac.id/id/eprint/38153
Raj, S. (2023). Cross-border insolvency: The case for India to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 6(4), 1505. https://ijlmh.com/paper/cross-border-insolvency-the-case-for-india-to-adopt-the-uncitral-model-law
Rau, A. S. (2019). Perizinan Angkutan Udara Bukan Niaga menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2009 tentang Penerbangan. Lex Privatum, 7(4). https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/lexprivatum/article/view/26866
Roy, R. N., & Gupta, S. (2023). Cross border insolvency under the Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 26(6), 1–9. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/cross-border-insolvency-under-the-indian-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-16414.html
Sama, M. A. (2025). The doctrine of Salomon vs A. Salomon: Examining the myth and fiction of corporate incorporation. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(10), 611–617. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000051
Seehaus, S., & Peráček, T. (2024). The impact of the Constitutional Court ruling of 15 November 2023 on the federal government’s budget planning and the potential increase in insolvency cases in Germany. Juridical Tribune: Review of Comparative and International Law, 14(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.62768/TBJ/2024/14/2/01
Sugandi, D., Tan, D., & Fitri, W. (2024). Perbandingan Doktrin The Piercing of Corporate Veil di Berbagai Negara: Indonesia, Perancis, dan Jerman. Unes Journal of Swara Justisia, 8(3), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.31933/0mcmbd28
Sumakud, D. L., Wijayati, R. A., & Simanjuntak, J. (2024). Analisis Yuridis Kedudukan Sita Umum yang Dilakukan Kurator terhadap Sita Pidana dalam Pemberesan Boedel Pailit. Jurnal Hukum To-Ra: Hukum untuk Mengatur dan Melindungi Masyarakat, 10(Special Issue), 125–135. https://ejournal.fhuki.id/index.php/tora/article/view/467
Vikram, V., & Jhunjhunwala, K. S. (2023). The non-obstante nuisance: A critique of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Indian Law Review, 7(3), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2023.2259259
Waldman, A. (2024). Unperfected PPSA security interests in insolvency: Why we should delete s 267 and Corporations Act s 588FL.
Warsito, L. (2024). Urgensi Pembuktian Syarat Kepailitan dan Tes Insolvensi dalam Permohonan Kepailitan. Jurnal USM Law Review, 7(2), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v7i2.9018
Yang, S., & Lijing, N. (2024). Substantive consolidation in bankruptcy of affiliated enterprises: The dilemmas of judicial application and improvements of the criteria. Contemporary Social Sciences, 9(6), 132–155.
Yusuf, M. S., Gani, A. M., & Siddiq, N. K. (2024). Hukum Perseroan Terbatas dan Perkembangannya di Indonesia. Jurnal Fundamental Justice, 5(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.30812/fundamental.v5i1.3476