CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF HOLDING COMPANIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES COMMITTED BY SUBSIDIARIES
DOI:
10.54443/morfai.v6i2.4987Published:
2026-01-17Downloads
Abstract
The structure of multinational corporations has created fundamental juridical challenges regarding criminal liability. The principle of separate legal personality has traditionally insulated holding companies from liability for environmental crimes committed by their subsidiaries, notwithstanding the parent company's dominant operational and economic control. This research examines how various legal systems address this accountability issue through doctrines such as piercing the corporate veil, vicarious liability, and systemic fault models. Furthermore, this study analyzes the effectiveness of the Indonesian legal framework, specifically the Law on Environmental Protection and Management (UUPPLH, Article 116) and Supreme Court Regulation No. 13 of 2016 (Articles 4(2) and 6), while identifying the causes of implementation gaps. Comparative analysis reveals a global evolution from the restrictive identification doctrine toward a pragmatic organizational fault model. It is found that Indonesia's legal framework is de jure adequate, having adopted functional liability (UUPPLH) and organizational liability (Perma). However, the key finding highlights the absence of de facto jurisprudence due to structural barriers, particularly evidentiary challenges and institutional capacity. In conclusion, this research recommends the adoption of a hybrid prosecution model combining the functional instruments of the UUPPLH and the organizational instruments of Perma 13/2016 as an effective solution to combat holding company impunity.
Keywords:
Corporate Criminal Liability Holding Company Environmental Crimes.References
Anindito, L. (2017). “Lingkup Tindak Pidana Korupsi dan Pembuktian Kesalahan dalam Sistem Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi di Indonesia, Inggris, dan Prancis.” Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi 3, no. 1: 1–29.
Aripkah, N. (2020). “Persoalan Kriteria Batasan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi: Tinjauan Terhadap Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 13 Tahun 2016.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 27, no. 2: 367–387.
Boisvert, Anne-Marie. (2002). “Corporate Criminal Liability.” Discussion Paper. Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/jhr-jdp/dp-dt/ccl-rpe.html.
Calleja, M., and S. Borg. (2016). “Piercing the Corporate Veil: Greening Companies’ Governance and Shareholder Activism.” IUCN Academy of Environmental Law EJournal, no. 7: 36–56.
Chairunnisa, M., A. Syahrin, T. Kamello, and M. Siregar. (2013). “Pertanggungjawaban Perusahaan Induk Terhadap Perusahaan Anak dalam Hal terjadinya Pencemaran dan/atau Kerusakan Lingkungan Hidup.” USU Law Journal 1, no. 2: 28–39.
Dekky Tiara Pra Setia, Markoni Markoni, Wasis Susetio, and I Made Kanthika. (2024). “Analisis Yuridis Penegakan Hukum Korporasi di Bidang Lingkungan Hidup: Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Batam Nomor 932/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Btm.” Aliansi: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan Dan Sosial Humaniora 1, no. 4: 296–319.
Diamanti, G. (2023). “Reform of the Identification Doctrine: A Welcome Improvement to the Law on Corporate Criminal Liability.” Edmonds, Marshall, McMahon. July 17, 2023. https://www.emmlegal.com/publications/reform-identification-doctrine/.
Dube, I., and M. M. Rahim. (2025). Corporate Criminal Liability in Environmental Jurisprudence. Taylor & Francis.
Faqir, R. (2016). “The Criminal Liability of Parent Corporations for Acts of Its Subsidiaries under Criminal Law in Jordan: A Comparative Study.” Beijing Law Review 7: 212–237.
Gelder, E. van, and C. Ryngaert. (n.d.). “Dutch Report on Prosecuting Corporations for Violations of International Criminal Law.” Report. Utrecht University Repository. Accessed [Tanggal Anda Mengakses]. https://research-portal.uu.nl/files/46976669/Ryngaert_Dutch_Report_only.pdf.
Gemilang, G., Ismaidar, I., & Zarzani, T. R. (2024). Pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi dalam tindak pidana pencucian uang. Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research, 4(2), 8455-8471.
Gireesh, G., P. Kamat, and V. Thakur. (2024). “Examining the Doctrine of Veil-Piercing Vis-à-Vis Environmental Parent Company Liability in India.” Centre for Environmental Law, Education, Research and Advocacy (CEERA), NLSIU. October 25, 2024. https://ceerapub.nls.ac.in/examining-the-doctrine-of-veil-piercing-vis-a-vis-environmental-parent-company-liability-in-india/.
Harahap, E. S., A. Syahrin, M. Mulyadi, and 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, no. 1: 103–126.
Ismaidar, Ismaidar, Muhammad Aldin, and August Saut Maringan Sihombing. (2025). “Penegakan Hukum terhadap Tindak Pidana Korporasi di Bidang Lingkungan Hidup.” Aliansi: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan Dan Sosial Humaniora 2, no. 4: 51–58.
Jarmoko, Muhammad Nurulloh. (2025). “Yurisprudensi MA: Korporasi Bebas Pidana Namun Tetap Bertanggung Jawab Perdata Lingkungan.” MariNews Mahkamah Agung. September 15, 2025. marinews.mahkamahagung.go.id/putusan/yurisprudensi-ma-korporasi-bebas-pidana-namun-tetap-0zn.
Kristina, M. (2018). “Formulasi Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi dengan Adanya Peraturan Mahkamah Agung No. 13 Tahun 2016.” Jurnal Yustika: Media Hukum dan Keadilan 21, no. 02: 1–11.
Lal, M. (2023). “How Much Do Corporate Liability and Vicarious Liability Overlap in Environmental Law?” International Journal of Novel Research and Development 8, no. 12: a408–a417.
Lasry, E. (2025). “Corporate Liability in France.” Global Compliance News. https://www.globalcompliancenews.com/white-collar-crime/corporate-liability-in-france/.
Pravifjayanto, M. R. (2025). “Rekontruksi Sistem Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Atas Kejahatan Terhadap Lingkungan Hidup Perspektif Hukum Progresif.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 55, no. 1: 89–102.
Rambe, M. J. (2022). Legal Issues of State Financial Status in State-Owned Enterprises of the Holding Company Indonesian Mining Industry (MIND ID). International Journal of Economic, Technology and Social Sciences (Injects), 3(2), 332-338.
Ratna, G., and J. Banerjee. (2025). “Corporate Accountability and the Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil.” International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation 7, no. 1: 57.
Siregar, M. A., Adrian, R. F., & Rambe, M. J. (2023). Menelusuri Perjalanan Lahirnya Konsep Sistem Hukum Pidana Dan Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia. Penerbit Tahta Media.
Strik, D. (2025). “Piercing the Corporate Veil in Public Interest Matters.” European Company and Financial Law Review 22, no. 1: 25–41.
Thompson, Robert B. (1994). “Unpacking Limited Liability: Direct and Vicarious Liability of Corporate Participants for Torts of the Enterprise.” Vanderbilt Law Review 47: 1.
Zarzani, T. R., Ismaidar, I., & Fahriza, W. (2024). Dimensions Of Corporate Crime. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 1(2), 108-113.
Zulkarnain. (2011). “Hambatan Penegakan Hukum terhadap Pelaku Kejahatan Korporasi dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia (Menunggu Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Upaya Pemberantasan Kejahatan Korporasi).” Jurnal Konstitusi 4, no. 2.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Arman Candra, Fitri Rafianti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Downloads
How to Cite
