Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Direksi adalah salah satu organ Perseroan Terbatas yang berwenang dan bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan suatu Perseroan Terbatas. Direksi dalam menjalankan tugasnya harus disesuaikan dengan maksud dan tujuan perseroan. Direksi juga berwenang untuk mewakili Perseroan, baik di dalam maupun di luar pengadilan sesuai dengan ketentuan anggaran dasar Perseroan. Tindakan seorang Direksi adalah suatu hal yang sangat penting untuk kelangsungan dan perkembangan Perseroan yang diurusnya. Dalam kepengurusannya, Direksi wajib menjalankan fiduciary duty yang didalamnya meliputi juga duty of care dan duty of loyalty. Dalam menjalankan tugas fiduciary duty-nya tersebut direksi dilindungi oleh Business Judgement of Rule, sehingga apabila perseroan mengalami kerugian maka direksi hanya mempunyai tanggungjawab yang terbatas dan tidak akan dimintakan pertanggungjawaban secara pribadi. Tetapi didalam kasus PT.X ini, direksi telah lalai dalam melaksanakan prinsip Duty of care dalam perjanjian yang dibuat atas namaPT.X, sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian bagi PT.X yang diurusnya. Hal ini berakibat bahwa direksi dapat dimintakan pertanggungjawaban secara pribadi terhadap kerugian yang diderita oleh PT.X.

---

Board of Director is an organ in a Limited Liability Company fully authorized and responsible on the management of the Limited Liability Company. Board of Director in carrying out its duty must comply with the aims and objectives of the company. The Board of Director is also authorized to represent the company, within or outside the court pursuant to the articles of association of the company. Action conducted by a Director in the company has very significant role in the continuity and development of the company he or she managed. In carrying out its managerial actions, the Board of Director must perform fiduciary duty principle within which also included duty of care and duty of loyalty.

In performing its fiduciary duty, the Board of Directors is protected by Business Judgement of Rule, so that in the case the company experienced of loss, the Board of Director will only have limited responsibility, and will not be claimed for its personal responsibility. However, in this PT.X case, the Board of Director had failed to perform Duty of Care principle in the agreement it made on behalf of PT.X, which caused PT.X he managed experiencing loses. This case cause the Board of Directors can be prosecuted personally against the lost incurred by PT.X."

"Direksi sebagai pengurus perseroan terbatas perlu memperhatikan doktrin-doktrin yang berlaku umum berkaitan dengan tanggung jawabnya mengurus perseroan terbatas, diantaranya doktrin fiduciary duty. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kepustakaan dengan penelitian hukum normatif dan studi kasus PT Sarinah (Persero). Kesimpulan penelitian ini adalah bahwa Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas tidak secara tegas mencantumkan bahwa Direksi mengemban tugas-tugas sesuai doktrin fiduciary duty walaupun tercermin menerima doktrin fiduciary duty dalam pasal-pasalnya. Penerapan prinsip fiduciary duty oleh Direksi dalam mengelola PT berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas sangat bergantung pada Direksi dan pihak-pihak yang terkait dengan PT (stakeholders). Prinsip fiduciary duty menuntut adanya tanggung jawab atas tugas Direksi tersebut. Pada dasarnya, setiap perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh Direksi yang melampaui hak dan kewenangan yang diberikan PT berdasarkan prinsip fiduciary duty tidak mengikat PT. Oleh karena itu, terhadap anggota Direksi tersebur dapat dimintakan pertanggungjawaban hukum, baik secara pidana maupun perdata (criminal and civil liability) dan ia bertanggung jawab untuk membayar kerugian tersebut dari kekayaan pribadinya. Penerapan prinsip fiduciary duty oleh Direksi dalam mengurus PT dalam kasus PT Sarinah (Persero) telah melibatkan lembaga peradilan. Dalam perkara kasus PT Sarinah (Persero), penegakan hukum atas pelanggaran tugas yang dilakukan Direksi adalah melalui dakwaan melakukan tindak pidana korupsi walaupun sebenarnya dalam perkara tersebut terdapat semua unsur fiduciary duty.

---

The Board of Directors, as the board that manages the company, must have regard to general applicable doctrines in carrying out its responsibilities, among other things the doctrine of fiduciary duty. This research uses literature methodology, with normative legal research, and a case study of PT Sarinah (Persero). The conclusion of this research is that Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Company does not expressly stipulate that the Board of Directors must meet its duties in accordance with the doctrine of fiduciary duty, even though, this doctrine seems to be embodied in its articles. The implementation of fiduciary duty principle by the Board of Directors in managing a company based on Law No. 40 of 2007 very much depends on the actions of the Board of Directors and relevant stakeholders. The fiduciary duty principle demands that the Board of Directors be responsible for its actions. In essence, every action of the Board of Directors that exceeds rights and authorities given by the company based on the principle of fiduciary duty does not bind the company. Consequently, members of Board of Directors can be liable for both criminal and civil liabilities and to pay this with their personal property. The application of fiduciary duty principle by the Board of Directors in managing the company in the case of PT Sarinah (Persero) has involved the judiciary. In the case of PT Sarinah (Persero), enforcement upon violation of duties by the Board of Directors takes the form of prosecution of a crime of corruption even though, in fact, all elements of fiduciary duty exists in the case."

"Penelitian ini menyoroti kekosongan pengaturan secara khusus mengenai transaksi benturan kepentingan oleh Direksi PT yang memiliki unsur kepentingan pribadi sehingga dapat merugikan PT atau dalam doktrin hukum dikenal sebagai self dealing transaction. Bahwa UUPT di Indonesia hanya memberikan penekanan terhadap tugas fidusia (fiduciary duty) yang diemban oleh Direksi PT, tanpa secara tegas melarang self dealing transaction. Pengaturan di Amerika Serikat, Australia, dan Belanda mengakui langkah-langkah preventif dalam menghadapi self dealing transaction. Model Business Corporation Act 2016 di Amerika Serikat mengatur kriteria seperti pengungkapan kepentingan pribadi yang material, voting oleh mayoritas anggota Direksi atau pemegang saham yang tidak berkepentingan, dan aspek keadilan transaksi bagi perseroan. Di Australia, Corporations Act 2001 membutuhkan pengungkapan kepentingan dan persetujuan RUPS yang mempertimbangkan keuntungan perseroan. Di Belanda, Burgerlijk Wetboek Boek 2 menyatakan Direksi yang berkepentingan tidak terlibat dalam pengambilan keputusan transaksi. Hal ini menunjukkan adanya kesamaan prinsip pengaturan self dealing transaction dengan memberikan precaution indicators untuk menjaga keadilan dan kepentingan PT. Dalam memeriksa dan memutus kasus terkait transaksi benturan kepentingan, Majelis Hakim di Indonesia masih menghadapi kesulitan dalam mendefinisikan transaksi benturan kepentingan antara Direksi dan perseroan yang dipimpinnya. Hakim cenderung bersifat normatif dengan hanya mempertimbangkan aspek formalitas, yaitu adanya persetujuan RUPS. Pada beberapa kasus, ketiadaan dalam hal transparansi Direksi dalam hal pengungkapan kepentingan pribadi maupun tidak adanya keterlibatan dari Direksi, Dewan Komisaris, dan pemegang saham yang tidak berkepentingan dalam pengambilan keputusan terkait transaksi benturan kepentingan. Berbeda dengan negara-negara tiap perbandingan, langkah-langkah preventif oleh Direksi yang memiliki kepentingan menjadi sangat penting dalam mengevaluasi keabsahan persetujuan RUPS oleh Majelis Hakim dan mencegah terjadinya praktik self dealing transaction yang merugikan PT. Melalui penilaian Hakim terhadap langkah-langkah preventif tersebut, persetujuan RUPS dapat memenuhi standar hukum yang ditetapkan dan melindungi kepentingan perseroan, para pemegang saham, dan memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi Direksi yang berkepentingan.

---

This thesis sheds light on the specific lack of regulations regarding self-dealing transactions by Directors of PT (Limited Liability Company) in Indonesia, where personal interests can harm the company. Unlike other countries like the United States, Australia, and the Netherlands, Indonesian law does not explicitly prohibit self-dealing transactions, focusing only on fiduciary duty obligations. In the United States, the Model Business Corporation Act 2016 outlines criteria such as disclosing material personal interests, voting by disinterested Directors or shareholders, and ensuring fairness in transactions. Australia's Corporations Act 2001 requires interest disclosure and approval from shareholders, considering the company's benefit. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Civil Code Book 2 states that interested Directors should not participate in decision-making. These regulations emphasize preventive measures and protect the company's interests. However, Indonesian judges face challenges in defining conflict of interest transactions between Directors and their companies. They often consider formal aspects, like approval from shareholders, without assessing transparency or the involvement of disinterested parties. This differs from other countries that emphasize preventive measures taken by Directors with personal interests to evaluate the validity of shareholder approvals and prevent harmful self-dealing practices. To ensure fairness and protect the company, shareholders, and interested Directors, Indonesian law should adopt precautionary indicators and encourage transparency in disclosing personal interests. By incorporating preventive measures into the evaluation of shareholder approvals, Indonesian judges can uphold legal standards and safeguard the company's interests. In conclusion, addressing the regulatory gaps regarding self-dealing transactions is essential in Indonesia. Implementing preventive measures and emphasizing transparency can protect the company and stakeholders, aligning Indonesian law with international practices."

"Tesis ini berjudul: Pertanggungjawaban Anggota Direksi BUMN (PT Persero) Dalam Penerapan Prinsip Kehati-hatian di dalam Pengambilan Keputusan yang Dapat Berdampak Kerugian Bagi Perseroan (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2740k/PID/2006). Adapun rumusan masalah tesis ini adalah: (1) Sejauh mana pertanggungjawaban anggota Direksi BUMN (PT Persero) terhadap Perseroan atas tindakan pengurusan yang telah dilakukannya dan (2) Kapan seorang anggota Direksi BUMN (PT.Persero) dinyatakan tidak menerapkan prinsip kehati-hatian atas tindakan pengurusan yang telah dilakukannya yang berdampak kerugian bagi Perseroan. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, yang dilakukan dengan cara penelitian kepustakaan guna memperoleh data sekunder.Dari hasil analisis dapat ditarik kesimpulan bahwa anggota Direksi tidak menerapkan prinsip kehati-hatian dalam mengelola Perseroan terbukti dengan dilanggarnya anggaran dasar Perseroan dan ketentuan-ketentuan lain yang terkait dengan pengelolaan Perseroan. Penilaian terhadap anggota Direksi dalam melaksanakan prinsip kehati-hatian dapat dilakukan secara sederhana dengan mengacu pada pendekatan yuridis formil dan yuridis materiil. Penilaian secara yuridis formil dilakukan dengan batasan pada Undang-undang Perseroan Terbatas, Undang-undang Badan Usaha Milik Negara, dan keputusan Organ Perseroan berupa keputusan Direksi dan RUPS.

---

The title of this thesis is: The Responsibility of The Board of Directors of a State Owned Company (Persero Company) in Compliance with Duty of Care Principle in Relation to The Decision Making Which Will Affecting to The Company (Supreme Court Case Studies 27. 40k/PID/2006)This thesis demonstrates: (1) How far the responsibility of the Board of Directors in regard to the implementation of the manajerial duty that has been conducted, and (2) When a member of the Board of Directors declared not comply with duty of care principle in related to the implementation of the manajerial duty that has been conducted which resulted in loss to the Company. To approach the case, the writter use normative juridical type through documents investigation to collect secondary data.

The conclusions of the research are: The Board of Directors did not apply the duty of care principle in managing the Company, which is proven in that the Company articles of association were not complied with assessment of Director?s duty of care principle can be done in simple terms by using the formal and material juridical approach. The formal juridical assessment act in accordance with the Company Law, the State Owned Company Law, the Board of Directors decree, the shareholders general assembly decree."

"ABSTRAKFokus tesis ini membahas pertanggung jawaban Direksi yang rangkap jabatan yang permasalahannya timbul akibat pemberlakuan larangan rangkap jabatan mengingat hal tersebut berpotensi menghambat persaingan usaha yang sehat. Tesis ini menggunakan desain penelitian yuridis normatif yang disajikan secara kualitatif dengan teknis analisis deskriptif dan kritis. Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat UU Persaingan Usaha diatur ketentuan larangan rangkap jabatan sebagai direksi atau komisaris pada dua atau lebih perseroan. Namun ternyata ketentuan ini tidak melarang mutlak rangkap jabatan, melainkan hanya terhadap rangkap jabatan yang menyebabkan terjadinya praktek monopoli dan atau persaingan usaha tidak sehat. Ada 2 bentuk rangkap jabatan yang dilarang. Pertama, apabila orang tersebut duduk dalam dua perusahaan yang bersaing hubungan horizontal atau kedua perusahaan berada dalam pasar bersangkutan yang sama . Kedua, rangkap jabatan direksi pada tingkat vertikal hulu-hilir atau memiliki kaitan erat dalam proses produksi/distribusi . Atas pelanggaran ketentuan rangkap jabatan ini, maka telah terjadi pelanggaran fiduciary duty yang dilakukan oleh direksi yaitu dalam bentuk pelanggaran duty of care, duty of good faith, dan duty to manage the company rsquo;s affairs with the proper degree of skill and care. Atas pelanggaran duty of care tersebut, Direksi yang rangkap jabatan dapat dimintakan pertanggung jawabannya sampai kepada harta pribadi atas kerugian perseroan sebagaimana termuat dalam Pasal 97 Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas.

---

ABSTRACTThe focus of this thesis discusses the responsibilities of the Board of Directors in dual positions whose problems arise due to the implementation of the dual position ban considering that it has the potential to hamper fair business competition. This thesis uses a normative legal research method which is presented in qualitative approach and the technical analysis is descriptive and critical. Based on Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition Business Competition Act shall be stipulated in the prohibition of dual positions as directors or commissioners in two or more companies. However, this provision does not prohibit the absolute dual position, but only against dual positions causing the occurrence of monopolistic practices and or unfair business competition. There are 2 forms of dual positions that are prohibited. Firstly, if the person is seated in two competing companies horizontal relationship or both companies are in the same relevant market . Secondly, dual positions of directors at the vertical level closely related in the production distribution process . Upon the violation of this dual position provision, there has been fiduciary duty violations committed by the Board of Directors in the form of violation of duty of care, duty of good faith and duty to manage the company 39 s affairs with the proper degree of skill and care. For the violation on duty of care, the Board of Directors may be held accountable to personal property for the loss of the company as contained in Article 97 of the Company Act."

"Tesis ini membahas tanggung jawab direksi perseroan terbatas dalam pembuatan dan pelaksanaan perjanjian kerja waktu tertentu dengan tenaga kerja, Berdasar Undang-undang Nomor. 40 Tahun 2007, tentang Perseroan Terbatas dan Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2003, tentang Ketenagakerjaan. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, sehingga penelitian ini berbasis pada analisis terhadap norma hukum, baik hukum dalam arti peraturan perundang- undangan, maupun hukum dalam arti putusan pengadilan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa dalam pembuatan perjanjian kerja waktu tertentu perlu diperhatikan pihak yang berwenang menandatangani perjanjian itu; Hanya yang berwenang yang boleh menandatangani surat perjanjian; perlu adanya peran aktif pemerintah untuk mengawasi pelaksanaan perjanjian ini; dan perlu dibentuk lembaga pengawas perjanjian kerja yang independen.

---

This thesis discusses the responsibilities of directors in making the limited implementation of the agreement and work with a certain time of labor, By Tax Act. 40 In 2007, the Limited Company and Act No. 13 in 2003, on Employment. This research is a qualitative research method using a normative juridical research, so this research is based on the analysis of legal norms, both in terms of legal regulations, and law in the sense that the court decision. Results of research suggest that in making the agreement work time needs to the authorities that sign the agreement; Only authorized personnel should sign the agreement; need the active role of the government to oversee the implementation of this agreement, and supervisory agencies need to be agreement that the independent work."

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai perjanjian pemegang saham pinjam nama (nominee shareholder) pada Perseroan Terbatas (“PT”). Nominee shareholder merupakan suatu konsep penggunaan nama orang yang ditunjuk (nominee) yang didaftarkan sebagai pemilik saham pada suatu PT oleh pemilik yang sebenarnya (beneficiary) dari saham tersebut. Saat ini, penggunaan konsep nominee shareholder masih menjadi suatu kontroversi karena belum ada peraturan yang mengatur secara spesifik sehingga secara umum dianggap sebagai suatu penyelundupan hukum. Rumusan masalah yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah konsep perjanjian nominee shareholder dalam hukum positif di Indonesia beserta perkembangannya dan kaitan keabsahan perjanjian tersebut dengan penerapan prinsip keterbukaan, serta keabsahan perjanjian nominee shareholder yang dibuat dibawah tangan dan diwaarmerking Notaris berdasarkan Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Denpasar Nomor 169/PDT/2019/PT.DPS. Untuk menjawab permasalahan tersebut, digunakan metode penelitian hukum doktrinal, dengan analisis menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif yang bersumber dari bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Pada hasil penelitian, perkembangan hukum positif Indonesia saat ini memungkinkan konsep nominee shareholder dapat secara sah dilakukan dengan syarat diperlukannya pemenuhan terhadap penerapan prinsip keterbukaan, yang diwujudkan dengan dibuatnya perjanjian nominee shareholder dalam bentuk akta Notaris, serta pengungkapan informasi mengenai keberadaannya kepada pihak ketiga, khususnya pemerintah. Kemudian, dalam penyelesaian sengketa kasus perjanjian nominee shareholder pada Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Denpasar Nomor 169/PDT/2019/PT.DPS, keabsahan perjanjian nominee shareholder yang dibuat dibawah tangan dan diwaarmerking Notaris tidaklah dapat dianggap sah, karena tidak memenuhi syarat penerapan prinsip keterbukaan sebagaimana disebutkan di atas.

---

This study discusses the nominee shareholder concept in the Limited Liability Company (the “Company”). Nominee shareholder is a concept of that uses the name of appointed person (nominee) who is registered as the shareholder in a Company by the actual owner shareholder of such share (beneficiary). At present, the use of the nominee shareholder concept is still a matter of controversy, since there is no specific regulation governing such thing, so that it is generally considered a legal smuggling. The formulation of issues discussed in this study are the concept of nominee shareholder agreement in positive law in Indonesia and its development, and the correlation between the validity of such agreement and the application of disclosure principle, as well as validity of nominee shareholder agreement made underhand and notarized by Notary based on the Denpasar High Court Decision Number 169/PDT /2019/PT.DPS. In order to respond to such issues, method used in this research is doctrinal, with analysis using a qualitative approach, which originates from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Based on the results of the research, the current positive law in Indonesia allows the concept of nominee shareholder to be implemented legally on the condition that it is necessary to implement the disclosure principle, which is realized by making a nominee shareholder agreement in the form of a notarial deed, as well as disclosing information regarding its existence to the third parties, in particular the government. Then, in resolving the dispute over the nominee shareholder agreement case in the Case Study of Denpasar High Court Decision Number 169/PDT/2019/PT.DPS, the validity of the nominee shareholder agreement made underhanded and notarized (waarmerking) by a Notary cannot be considered valid, since it does not meet the requirements for the implementation of disclosure principle as mentioned above."

"[ABSTRAKUndang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas menetapkan 3 (tiga) organ perseroan yaitu Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris. Direksi berfungsi pada pokoknya untuk bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan sedangkan Dewan Komisaris berfungsi melakukan pengawasan umum dan/atau khusus sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar serta memberi nasihat kepada Direksi. Pada setiap masa akhir jabatannya, Direksi mempertanggung jawabkan pengurusan perseroan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, yang memiliki kewenangan yang tidak diberikan kepada Direksi atau Dewan Komisaris dalam batas yang ditentukan Undang-Undang dan/atau Anggaran Dasar perseroan. Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham kemudian memberikan pelunasan dan pembebasan tanggung jawab (acquit et de charge) kepada Direksi jika tindakan kepengurusan perseroan telah tercermin dalam laporan keuangan.Pada tahun 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media sebagai perseroan yang menyediakan jasa internet (Internet Service Provider) menyelenggarakan jasanya melalui jaringan bergerak seluler milik PT Indosat Tbk melalui perjanjian kerjasama broadband. Kerjasama ini telah dipertanggung jawabkan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham pada tahun 2011 dan telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge kepada Direksi yang diwakili oleh Indar Atmanto selaku Direktur Utama. Kejaksaan Agung sebagai aparat penegak hukum mendakwa Indar Atmanto telah menggunakan frekuensi 2.1 GHz (3G) untuk menyelenggarakan jasa internetnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian negara sedangkan telah diketahui Direksi telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Permasalahan hukum timbul atas pertanyaan sejauh mana acquit et de charge melindungi Direksi secara perdata dan pidana.

---

ABSTRACTAct No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment., Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.]"