By: Eko B. Supriyanto, Editor-in-Chief, InfoBank Media Group
The Financial Services Authority, the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General’s Office have finally reached a consensus: non-performing loans resulting from business risks do not automatically fall under criminal jurisdiction. A consensus that—perhaps—could be called a “victory for common sense” amid a regulatory jungle that often preys on its own best offspring. Professional bankers.
This shared perspective emerged during the Banking Industry Forum themed “Application of the Business Judgment Rule Concept to Non-Performing Loans in Banks,” held in Jakarta on Tuesday (May 12, 2026). Three institutions that usually operate within their own respective spheres—the regulator, the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General’s Office—this time sat at the same table and spoke with one voice: bankers need not fear extending credit under the shadow of handcuffs.
This is clearly a significant step forward. The OJK’s initiative deserves recognition, and of course, we must not forget the Supreme Court and the Attorney General’s Office.
The banking industry may breathe a sigh of relief. The reason is, “rationality is the foundation for building a healthy and democratic public life.” And what could be more irrational than punishing someone for business failures that are inherent in every credit decision?
“The concept of the Business Judgment Rule essentially provides legal protection to banks for business decisions made in good faith, based on the principle of prudence, free from conflicts of interest, and carried out in the best interests of the company,” said Dian Ediana Rae, Chief Executive of Banking Supervision at the OJK.
Clearly, this statement should not be read merely as legal jargon, but as an acknowledgment that economic decisions always involve uncertainty—and that the law must be mature enough to distinguish between failure and crime.
Supreme Court Justice of the Criminal Chamber Jupriyadi was even more explicit: “If all these parameters are met yet losses still occur, including the risk of non-performing loans, then this constitutes a business failure and is not a criminal offense.” A statement that might be interpreted as: “Not everyone who suffers a loss is a corrupt official, just as not every rain leads to a flood.”
And this is where it is necessary to read this agreement in its entirety. For amidst the chorus of legal protections for bankers, Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes at the Attorney General’s Office Didik Farkhan Alisyahdi delivered the sharpest critique: the business judgment rule is not a shield to protect fraudulent practices. Legal protection may be nullified if manipulation, collusion, the provision of false information, disregard for the principle of prudence, or deviation from the original purpose of the loan are found.
This is the “tension between the market and the state” that Infobank has frequently highlighted recently—a state that is too powerful can strip away individual rights, but a state that is too weak will merely stand by as the strong prey on the weak. The Business Judgment Rule, in this interpretation, is not a free pass for recklessness. It serves as a fence protecting honest decision-makers, while also acting as a barrier to ensure that such protection does not become a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Jupriyadi also emphasized the importance of avoiding the “chilling effect”—a situation where bankers are afraid to make business decisions due to excessive fear of criminal liability. Infobank has consistently rejected the “criminalization fanaticism” that views every loss as a ticket to prison. Criminal law, as framed in this roundtable, should be the last resort or ultimum remedium in resolving banking issues.
The steps taken by the OJK, the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General’s Office in this roundtable deserve praise. Not because these three institutions have finally “made peace,” but because they chose to use common sense—referred to as social justice and human development.
Indonesia needs credit growth. The OJK reports that bank credit in February 2026 grew 9.37 percent year-over-year to Rp 8.559 trillion. This figure is not merely a statistic; it is the embodiment of thousands of business decisions made every day by bankers across the country. It must be acknowledged that behind every credit figure, there is a farmer waiting for seed capital, a small business owner waiting to expand, and a student waiting for tuition fees.
This agreement serves as a reminder of a simple truth that is often forgotten: You cannot encourage people to take risks while brandishing criminal charges at the faces of bankers who are already terrified. Nor can you ignore the trauma stemming from the rampant criminalization of non-performing loans.
Finally, the roundtable discussion last Tuesday (May 12, 2026) showed that our regulators and law enforcement agencies have finally chosen to be that “friend” to the banking industry. Not by relaxing oversight, but by placing the law in its proper context: as a night watchman, not an executioner ready to behead every time a business faces a loan default and financial bleeding.
We appreciate the steps taken by the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office, and of course the OJK.
We remain committed to and will continue to monitor this agreement. A written MoU will be drafted by these three institutions stating that not all non-performing loans automatically constitute a criminal offense. (*)
