PEMBUBARAN KORPORASI: KAJIAN KOMPARATIF ANTARA SISTEM HUKUM CIVIL LAW DAN COMMON LAW

Arsha Medina Aryadi* -  Universitas Tarumanagara, Indonesia
Rugun Romaida Hutabarat -  Universitas Tarumanagara, Indonesia

DOI : 10.24269/ls.v8i3a.10530

This research analyzes the dissolution of a company as a consequence of criminal law within the framework of civil law and common law, by comparing the practice in England and Germany. The research aims to show the different approaches to company dissolution. In the UK, compulsory liquidation proceedings and administrative flexibility are prioritized to protect the interests of creditors, whereas in Germany, dissolution requires formal shareholder approval and strict administrative oversight. In addition, this study also explores the factors that influence dissolution decisions and the dispute resolution efforts that arise. Through normative research with a statutory and comparative approach, this study analyzes legal documents and regulations related to dissolution in the two selected countries. Secondary data was collected from the analysis and review of academic literature. The results show that corporate dissolution in the UK emphasizes flexibility through the Companies Act 2006 and the Insolvency Act 1986, while Germany, under the Act on Limited Liability Companies Germany, follows a strict structural process. Both prioritize creditor protection, with the duration of liquidation being shorter in the UK than Germany, which requires a minimum of one year.

Keywords
Pembubaran Korporasi, Sanksi Pidana, Perbandingan Hukum.
  1. Anderson, C., & Morrison, D. (2015). Is Corporate Rescue a Realistic Ideal? Business as Usual in Australia and the United Kingdom. Nottingham Insolvency and Business Law E-Journal, 23(3). https://www4.ntu.ac.uk/nls/document_uploads/184255.pdf
  2. Azyral, Y. (2024). Peran Hukum Pidana Terhadap Penanganan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Korporasi Menurut Perma No . 13 Tahun 2016. Das Sollen: Jurnal Kajian Kontemporer Hukum Dan Masyarakat, 13, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.11111/dassollen.xxxxxxx
  3. Bhanukesh. (2021). Winding up of companies under the companies Act, 2013. International Journal of Law, 7(2), 10–14. https://www.lawjournals.org/archives/2021/vol7/issue2
  4. Chandra, T. Y. (2022). Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Sangir Multi Usaha.
  5. Dunn, G. (2023). German Corporate Law Update.
  6. Firdaus, K. A. (2023). Analisis Perbandingan Badan Hukum Sebagai Direktur Perseroan Terbatas di Britania Raya dan Indonesia. UNES Law Review, 6(2), 7163–7170. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i2.1597
  7. Goode, S. R. (2018). Principles of Corporate Insolvency Law. Malaysia: Sweet & Maxwel.
  8. Gov.UK. (2024). Wind up a company that owes you money. Gov.UK. https://www.gov.uk/wind-up-a-company-that-owes-you-money
  9. Harahap, E. S., Syahrin, A., Mulyadi, M., & Marlina. (2024). Penjatuhan Pidana Tambahan Terhadap Korporasi Yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Lingkungan Hidup (Studi Putusan Nomor 349/Pid.B/LH/2019/PN.Plw). Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review, 3(1). https://jurnal.locusmedia.id/index.php/jalr/article/view/280/190
  10. Ismaidar, I., Zarzani, T. R., & Hasibuan, O. S. F. (2024). Criminal Sanctions Fine For Corporations as Performers of Criminal Acts of Corruption From the Perspective of the Theory of Dignified Justice. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 1(3), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.62951/ijlcj.v1i3.121
  11. Koh, A. (2022). Shareholder withdrawal in close corporations: an Anglo-German comparative analysis. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 22(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735970.2021.2012883
  12. Labno, M. (2019). Claim for the dissolution of a limited liability company. Law&Society, 10. https://journals.pnu.edu.ua/index.php/LS/article/view/3810
  13. legislation.gov.uk. (1986). Insolvency Act 1986. UK Public General Acts. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45
  14. MA No.13. (2016). Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Tata Cara Penangangan Perkara Tindak Pidana Oleh Korporasi.
  15. Mahrus, A. (2015). Asas-asas Hukum Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
  16. Muladi, & Priyatno, D. (2014). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: Kencana Media Group.
  17. Nase, E. (2022). Corporate Governance in Germany – Current developments at a glance. Private Equity Magazin. https://www.pe-magazin.com/corporate-governance-in-germany-current-developments-at-a-glance/
  18. Nase, E. (2023). Corporate Governance Comparative Guide. Mondaq. https://www.mondaq.com/germany/corporatecommercial-law/1294392/corporate-governance-comparative-guide
  19. Nigam, N., & Boughanmi, A. (2016). Can innovative reforms and practices efficiently resolve financial distress? Journal of Cleaner Production, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.190
  20. Prakasa, R., Salsabila, N., Viona, W., Sherin, S., Rober, K., & Putera, A. (2024). Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana Korporasi Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Indonesian Research Journal on Education, 4(2), 1053–1059. https://doi.org/10.31004/irje.v4i2.830
  21. Rohman, T., & Sugiharto. (2023). Pemidanaan Model Double Track System Bagi Korporasi Dalam Tindak Pidana Lingkungan Hidup. Jurnal Magister Ilmu Hukum, 13(1), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.56943/dekrit.v13n1.155
  22. Rumapea, M. S., Syahrin, A., Hamdan, M., & Ikhsan, E. (2016). Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi dalam Tindak Pidana Kehutanan (Studi Putusan Kasasi Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor 2642 K/pid/2006). USU Law Journal, 4(2), 80–89. https://www.neliti.com/id/publications/14316/pertanggungjawaban-korporasi-dalam-tindak-pidana-kehutanan-studi-putusan-kasasi#cite
  23. Sec.61. (2020). Act on Limited Liability Companies Germany.
  24. Sec.62. (2020). Act on Limited Liability Companies Germany.
  25. Setyarini, D., Mahendrawati, N., & Arini, D. (2020). Pertanggungjawaban Direksi Perseroan Terbatas Yang Melakukan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum. Jurnal Analogi Hukum, 2(1), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.22225/ah.2.1.1608.12-16
  26. Sjahdeini, S. R. (2017). Ajaran Pemidanaan Tindak Pidana Korporasi & Seluk Beluknya. Jakarta: Kencana.
  27. Sjawie, H. (2017). Direksi Perseroan Terbatas Serta Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: Kencana.
  28. Soekanto, S. (2015). Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Universitas Indonesia.
  29. Sriwidodo, J. (2022). Pertanggungjawaban Kejahatan Korporasi Dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Kapel Press.
  30. Suhartanto, F. P., & Febrianty, Y. (2024). Perbandingan Sistem Hukum Civil Law dan Common Law. Konsensus : Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan, Hukum Dan Ilmu Komunikasi, 1(3), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.62383/konsensus.v1i3.218
  31. Vincenzi, C., Broadbent, G., Norris, T., Dowding, D., Burke, C., Gardiner, S., Kirkbride, J., Keppel‐Palmer, M., & Merino, E. (1994). Book reviews and notes. The Law Teacher, 28(1), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.1994.9992884
  32. WLN. (2014). Warwick Legal Network.
  33. Yatini, Purwadi, H., & Hartiwiningsih. (2019). Reformulasi Konstruksi Pidana Dalam Menjerat Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korporasi. Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan Ekonomi, 7(1), 144. https://doi.org/10.20961/hpe.v7i1.29208
  34. Yusuf, M. (2022). Urgensi Pembaharuan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Terhadap Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Kejahatan Korporasi. Jurnal Al Mujaddid Humaniora, 8(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.58553/jalhu.v8i2.126

Full Text:
Article Info
Submitted: 2024-11-12
Published: 2024-11-27
Section: Articles
Article Statistics: