Business Actor Liability for the Misuse of Company Secrets Obtained Through Collusion
A Study of KPPU Decision No. 08/Kppu-L/2024
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24252/al-risalah.vi.61848Keywords:
company secrets, collusion, business actor liability.Abstract
This study analyzes the forms of business actors’ liability for the misappropriation of confidential information obtained through collusion under Article 23 of Law No. 5 of 1999, using the case of KPPU Decision No. 08/KPPU-L/2024 concerning PT Chiyoda Kogyo Indonesia as the focal point. The research employs a normative juridical method through statutory and case study approaches, applying a deductive–interpretative reasoning model to assess the consistency of legal norms and the construction of corporate liability in competition law enforcement. The findings indicate that the misappropriation of corporate secrets through collusion meets the elements of Article 23 under the rule of reason approach, as it generates anti-competitive effects such as lost sales, market structure distortions, and reduced competitive discipline. The KPPU panel applied identification theory and vicarious liability to attribute the actions of individuals to the corporation; however, the effectiveness of law enforcement is constrained by KPPU’s limited authority, which allows only administrative sanctions without personal liability. The novelty of this study lies in the integration of normative analysis, corporate liability theory, and a law-and-economics framework to assess the competitive impact of information collusion. The study has theoretical implications by reaffirming the position of corporate secrets as part of market structure and practical implications through recommendations for legal reform, including turnover-based fines and the expansion of KPPU’s authority to enhance deterrence and the effectiveness of competition law enforcement in Indonesia.
References
Adi Nugroho, Susanti. Hukum Persaingan Usaha Di Indonesia, Dalam Teori Dan Praktik Serta Penerapan Hukumnya. Kencana, 2014.
Alvino, Luki, Firdaus, and Setia Putra. “Penggunaan Bukti Petunjuk Dalam Proses Pembuktian Perkara Persaingan Usaha Dan Monopoli Dalam Pengadilan Indonesia.” Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan 11, no. April (2025): 67–80.
Arsyad, Khaidir Tiar. “ANALISIS PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM MENJATUHKAN PUTUSANNYA PADA SUATU PERKARA RAHASIA DAGANG DITINJAU DARI KETENTUAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN TENTANG RAHASIA DAGANG (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Nomor 112/ PID.SUS/2019/PN.Mnd).” “Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI 1, no. July (2022).
Ciuriak, Dan, and Maria Ptashkina. “Quantifying Trade Secret Theft : Policy Implications Dan Ciuriak and Maria Ptashkina.” CIGI Papers, no. 253 (2021).
Fernandez, Noviarizal. “KPPU Sidangkan Persekongkolan Pencurian Rahasia Perusahaan.” Context.id, 2024. https://context.id/read/2294/kppu-sidangkan-persekongkolan-pencurian-rahasia-perusahaan.
Gabriela Salmon, Millytia Fabiola. “PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP RAHASIA PERUSAHAAN DALAM MENGHADAPI PERSAINGAN BISNIS DI INDONESIA.” Lex Privatum VII, no. 4 (2019): 88–98.
HARMI, RIVALDHY. “TANGGUNG JAWAB PEMERINTAH DALAM PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM MENURUT PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA (Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1495 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2017).” UNIVERSITAS ISLAM INDONESIA YOGYAKARTA 2020, 2020.
Hidayanti, Sri, and Muannif Ridwan. “PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP RAHASIA PERUSAHAAN DI INDONESIA.” Varia Hukum 3 (2021): 37–66.
Jovansyah, Ali, and Heru Sugiyono. “STRATEGI PENGAMANAN INFORMASI TERKAIT RENTANNYA KEBOCORAN RAHASIA DAGANG OLEH KARYAWAN.” Jurnal Kertha Semaya 12, no. 3 (2024): 494–505.
Karl O, Christiansen. Some Consideration on the Possibility of a Rational Criminal Policy. Resource M. Tokyo: UNAFEI, 1974.
Mayana, Ranti Fauza, and Tisni Santika. Rahasia Dagang. Bandung, 2022.
Mayva, Verandha, and Anna Maria Tri Angggraeni. “Eksaminasi Putusan Kppu Mengenai Rahasia Perusahaan Yang Mengakibatkan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat.” Amicus Curiae 1, no. 3 (2024): 1004–14. https://doi.org/10.25105/ygbbhn17.
Moch. Virgi Arivandi, Nadia Dwi Ramadani, Nur Rohma, Rafela Yumaning Putri, and Emma Yunika Puspasari. “Implikasi Hukum Dan Etika Dalam Kasus Pelanggaran Rahasia Dagang : Studi Kasus PT Chiyoda Kogyo Indonesia.” Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Pembangunan Indonesia 2, no. 4 (2024): 233–46. https://doi.org/10.61132/jepi.v2i4.1013.
Nadir. Hukum Persaingan Usaha “Membidik Persaingan Tidak Sehat Dengan Hukum Anti Monopoli Dan Persaingan Tidak Sehat.” Malang: Universitas Brawijaya Press (UB Press), 2015.
OECD. “Information Exchanges between Competitors under Competition Law.” Series Roundtables on Competition Policy. Vol. DAF/COMP(2010)37, 2010.
PEDOMAN PENJELASAN PASAL 23 UU NOMOR 5 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG LARANGAN PRAKTEK MONOPOLI DAN PERSAINGAN USAHA TIDAK SEHAT (n.d.). https://adoc.pub/pedoman-penjelasan-pasal-23-uu-nomor-5-tahun-1999-tentang-la.html .
Pratama, Muhammad Iqbal. “PENDEKATAN PEMBUKTIAN DALAM PENEGAKAN HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA BERDASARKAN.” Hukum Dan Kesejahteraan Universitas Al Azhar Indonesia 09 (2024): 24–36.
Primoratz, Igor. “The Judge as a Prole: Hare’s ‘Two-Level Theory’ and the Problem of Punishment.” ARSP: Archiv Für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy 74, n (1988). https://www.jstor.org/stable/23680298.
Qotrunnada Kahfi, Aruna Irani. “PERSEKONGKOLAN TENDER DALAM PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA PADA PUTUSAN NOMOR 570 K/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2022.” JURNAL RECHTENS 13, no. 1 (2024): 1–20.
Rabbani, Rachel Fayza, and Suherman Suherman. “Urgensi Pengaturan Confidentiality Agreement Sebagai Optimalisasi Perlindungan Kerahasiaan Informasi Bernilai Ekonomi.” Jurnal Usm Law Review 6, no. 3 (2023): 1020–39. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v6i3.7830.
Ramli, Ahmad M. H.A.K.I (Hak Atas Kepemilikan Intelektual) Teori Dasar Perlindungan Rahasia Dagang. Bandung: Mandar Maju, 2000.
Roy, Nur Abdul Rahman, Elisatris Gultom, and Deviana Yuanitasari. “Eksaminasi Penerapan Rule of Reason Terhadap Persekongkolan Untuk Memperoleh Rahasia Perusahaan Kompetitor Dan Probabilitas Dominasi Perusahaan Dalam Tindakan Anti Kompetitif: Studi Kasus Putusan Perkara Nomor: 08/Kppu-L/2024.” Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia 6, no. 4 (2025): 1985–95. https://doi.org/10.59141/japendi.v6i4.7652.
SALINAN PUTUSAN Nomor: 08/KPPU-L/2024 (2024).
Shelviana, Devy. “Persekongkolan Tender Di Sektor Infrastruktur Sebagai Tantangan Penegakan Hukum Persaingan Usaha.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora Dan Politik 5, no. 3 (2025): 2342–48.
Sudiarto. Pengantar Hukum Persaingan Usaha Di Indonesia. Jakarta: Kencana, 2021.
Sukrianto, Andi, Vince Ratna Multiwijaya, and Aprima Suar. “PERTANGGUNG JAWABAN KORPORASI DALAM TINDAK PIDANA PERSAINGAN USAHA DI INDONESIA.” Ensiklopedia Social Review 6, no. 3 (2024): 79–85.
Sumarab, Mariani. “SENGKETA PERSAINGAN USAHA DALAM KEGIATAN PERDAGANGAN MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR. 5 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG LARANGAN PRAKTEK MONOPOLI DAN PERSAINGAN USAHA TIDAK SEHAT.” Lex Privatum IX, no. 6 (2021): 151–60.
Tarmizi. “Analisis Hukum Persaingan Usaha Di Indonesia Dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2019.” Jurnal Real Riset 4 (2022): 12–19. https://doi.org/10.47647/jrr.
Wulandari, Marditia, Faradila Ramadani, Jihan Arthira, Alya Khairunnisa, and Karina Anggraini. “Analisis Yuridis Persekongkolan Untuk Mendapatkan Rahasia Perusaan Pt Chidoya Kogyo Indonesia (Studi Kasus: Putusan No.08/Kppu-L/2024).” Arus Jurnal Sosial Dan Humaniora 5, no. 08 (2025): 2515–24.
Wulandari, Rika, and Holijah. “Tanggung Jawab Korporasi Atas Pelanggaran Hukum Persaingan Usaha: Perspektif Hukum Perdata Dan Pidana,” 2024, 1–16.
Yuniarti, Rahmi., and Cheny Berlian. “KAJIAN YURIDIS UPAYA HUKUM PERSAINGAN USAHA DALAM MENCIPTAKAN KESEIMBANGAN ANTARA KEPENTINGAN PELAKU USAHA DAN PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN.” UIR LawReview, 2023, 62–70.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Elirica Aliyah Irwan Bauw, Dwi Desi Yayi Tarina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
