Skip to main content Skip to search

FMB & Partner Lawfirm

INDONESIA’S POSITIVE INVESTMENT LIST

INDONESIA’S POSITIVE INVESTMENT LIST

The Indonesian Government has finally issued the long-anticipated Positive Investment List through Presidential Regulation No. 10 of 2021 on Investment Business Fields (”Positive List”). The Positive Investment List is one of the 49 implementing regulations of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation (“Job Creation Law”) which is set to replace the previous Presidential Regulation No. 44 of 2016 concerning The List of Business Fields that are Closed and Business Fields that are Open with Conditions to Investment (“PR 44/2016”) In this writing we are highlighting the key changes to the previous PR 44/2016.

A. Business Fields Classification Under the Positive List

1. Business Fields that are Closed to Investment

Under the Positive List, all business fields are open to investment activities, except for (i) business fields that are declared closed for investments; or (ii) activities that can only be carried out by the central government.

Under the Job Creation Law there are only 6 business fields that are completely closed for investment, namely:

  1. narcotics cultivation and industry class I;
  2. all forms of gambling and/or casino activities;
  3. fishing of species of fish listed in Appendix I of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES);
  4. utilization or taking of coral and utilization or taking of corals from nature, that is used for construction material/lime/calcium, aquarium, and souvenirs/jewelry as well as living coral or dead coral (recently dead coral) of nature;
  5. chemical weapon manufacturing industry; and
  6. industries of Industrial chemicals and ozone-depleting substance;

 

2. Business Fields that are Open to Investment

     a. Priority Business Fields

To be defined as a “Priority Business”, the relevant business fields must meet the following criteria: (i) a national strategic program or project; (ii) capital intensive; (iii) labor-intensive; (iv) advance technology; (v) pioneer industry; (vi) export-oriented; and/or (vii) research, development, and innovation activities oriented.

Investors that are investing in priority business fields are eligible to receive:

(1) Fiscal Incentives, consisting of:

  • Tax Incentives (including tax allowance, tax holidays, or investment allowance).
  • Customs incentives in the form of exemption from import duty on imported machinery, goods, and material for industrial development and investment.

(2) Non-Fiscal incentives include the ease of obtaining business licenses, provision of supporting infrastructure, the guarantee of energy availability, the guarantee of material availability, immigration permits, employment permit, and other conveniences under the prevailing regulations.

      b. Business Fields Allocated for or which Require Partnership with Cooperatives and Micro, Small, and Medium Scale Enterprises (“UMKM”)

The allocated business fields or partnership with cooperatives and UMKM are the business sectors that are fully allocated for cooperatives and UMKM and business fields that requires Big Scale Enterprises to be in mandatory partnerships with cooperatives or UMKM.

Business fields that are allocated for cooperatives and UMKM are determined based on the following criteria:

  1. business activities that do not utilize technology or only use simple technology;
  2. business activities that have process specificities, are labor-intensive, and have a special and hereditary cultural heritage.
  3. the capital of the business activities does not exceed IDR 10,000,000,000 (ten billion Rupiah) excluding land and property.

Considering that the Positive List requires foreign investors to have Big Scale Business with an investment value of more than IDR 10,000,000,000 (ten billion Rupiah) excluding land and property, it is not possible for foreign investors to carry out business fields that are allocated for cooperatives and UMKM.  The Positive List, however, allows foreign investors to partner-up with cooperatives and UMKM as long as it covers the following criteria: (i) it must include business fields that are mostly occupied by cooperatives and UMKM; and/or (ii) it is a business sector that is purposely boosted to enter the larger supply chain.

      c. Business Fields that are open with certain requirements

There were 350 business fields that are open with certain requirements under PR 44/2016.  The Positive List reduced such number to only 46 business fields which makes many business fields no longer subject to certain maximum foreign ownership restrictions.   Business fields that are open with certain requirements are divided into 3 categories:

  1. investment requirements for domestic investors;
  2. investment requirements with the limitation for foreign investment; or
  3. investment requirements with special permits.

 

B. Minimum Investment Value for Foreign Investment under the Positive List

The Positive List requires foreign investors to only conduct business activities in a Big Scale Enterprise with a minimum investment value of more than IDR10,000,000,000 (ten billion Rupiah) excluding land and property for business premises. The exception for such requirement is given only to business entities that are domiciled in the Special Economic Areas (Kawasan Ekonomi Khusus or KEK) and the technology-based startup sector. The purpose of such an exception is to encourage the strengthening of the ecosystem of technology-based startups, which are not limited to funding aspects, infrastructure, mentor networks, transfer of technology, and market access.

C. Updated List of Business Fields that are Open with Certain Requirements

No. Business Field KBLI Positive List Previous Requirements under PR 44/2016
1. Publishing of newspaper magazines and newsletter (press) 58130 a.      Domestic capital: 100% for establishment;

b.      Foreign capital ownership: Maximum 49% (through the capital market) only for business expansion and development.

100% Domestic capital
2. Private Broadcasting Agency (Lembaga Penyiaran Swasta/LPS) 60102 a.      Domestic capital: 100% for establishment;

b.      Foreign capital ownership: Maximum 20% only for business expansion and development.

a.      Only for business expansion and development.

b.      Foreign capital ownership: Maximum 20%

3. Subscription Broadcasting Agency (Lembaga Penyiaran Berlangganan /LPB) 60202 a.      Domestic capital: 100% for establishment;

b.      Foreign capital ownership: Maximum 20% only for business expansion and development.

4. Radio community broadcasting agency 60102 a.      Domestic capital: 100% for establishment;

b.      Foreign capital ownership: Maximum 20% only for business expansion and development.

Reserved for Cooperative and UMKM
5. Television community broadcasting agency 60202 a.      Domestic capital: 100% for establishment;

b.      Foreign capital ownership: Maximum 20% only for business expansion and development.

6. Postal activities 53100 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
7. Domestic scheduled commercial air transportation 51101 a.      Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%;

b.      National capital must outnumber the entire foreign capital ownership.

a.      Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%;

b.      National capital must outnumber the entire foreign capital ownership.

8. Domestic non-scheduled commercial air transportation 51102 a.      Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%;

b.      National capital must outnumber the entire foreign capital ownership.

a.      Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%;

b.      National capital must outnumber the entire foreign capital ownership.

9. Air transportation activities 51109 a.      Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%;

b.      National capital must outnumber the entire foreign capital ownership.

a.      Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%;

b.      National capital must outnumber the entire foreign capital ownership.

10. Liner and tramper domestic sea transportation for passengers 50111 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Previous investment list only categorized Sea Transportation into 4, which are:

 

a.      Domestic Sea Transportation: Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%

b.      International Sea Transportation: Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%

c.       International Sea Transportation for Passengers (Excluding Cabotage): Maximum investment 70% for Investors from ASEAN Countries

d.      International Sea Transportation for Goods (Excluding Cabotage): Maximum investment 70% for Investors from ASEAN Countries.

 

11. Domestic sea transportation for tourism 50113 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
12. Pioneer sea transportation for passenger 50114 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
13. Liner and tramper domestic sea freight for goods 50131 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
14. Domestic sea transportation for special goods 50133 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
15. Pioneer domestic sea transportation for goods 50134 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
16. Public shipping domestic sea transportation 50135 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
17. Overseas liner and tramper sea freight for goods 50141 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
18. Overseas sea transportation for special goods 50142 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
19. Interprovincial general inland water transportation 50214 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
20. Interprovincial pioneering inland water transportation 50215 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
21. Interdistrict/intercity general inland water transportation 50216 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
22. Interdistrict/intercity pioneering inland water transportation 50217 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
23. Inner district/city general inland water transportation 50218 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
24. River and lake transportation for passengers with fixed and regular routes 50211 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
25. River and lake transportation for passengers with non-fixed and irregular routes 50212 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
26. River and lake transportation with non-fixed and irregular routes for tourism 50213 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
27. River and lake transportation for general goods and/or animals 50221 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
28. River and lake transportation for special goods 50222 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
29. River and lake transportation for hazardous goods 50223 Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49% Foreign capital ownership: maximum 49%
30. Main equipment industry 25200 Capital ownership based on approval from the Minister of Defense a.      100% domestic capital;

b.      Recommendation from the Ministry of Defense.

31. Industry of liquor containing alcohol* 11010 a.      For new investments, it currently can only be carried out in Bali, East Nusa Tenggara, North Sulawesi and Papua by paying attention to local culture and wisdom;

b.      Investment other than letter a, can be determined by the Head of Investment Coordinating Board based on the governor’s recommendation

Closed for Investment.
32. Industry of beverage containing alcohol: wine* 11020 a.      For new investments, it currently can only be carried out in Bali, East Nusa Tenggara, North Sulawesi and Papua by paying attention to local culture and wisdom;

b.      Investment other than letter a, can be determined by the Head of Investment Coordinating Board based on the governor’s recommendation

Closed for Investment.
33. Industry of beverage containing malt* 11031 a.      For new investments, it currently can only be carried out in Bali, East Nusa Tenggara, North Sulawesi and Papua by paying attention to local culture and wisdom;

b.      Investment other than letter a, can be determined by the Head of Investment Coordinating Board based on the governor’s recommendation

Closed for Investment.
34. Industry of traditional medical products for humans 21022 Domestic capital: 100% Domestic capital: 100%
35. Industry of wooden building products 16221 Domestic capital: 100% Required partnership with Cooperatives UMKM
36. Industry of coffee processing that has received geographical indication 10761 Domestic capital: 100% Previously not regulated
37. Industry of rendang 10750 Domestic capital: 100% Previously not regulated
38. Industry of vessels:

–          Pinisi;

–          Outrigger;

–          Wood with typical traditional design.

30111 Domestic capital: 100% Required partnership with Cooperatives UMKM
39. Industry of wood carving craft non mebeller: wood carving, reliefs, masks, sculptures, puppets 16293 Domestic capital: 100% Reserved for UMKM
40. Industry of traditional cosmetics 20232 Domestic capital: 100% Previously not regulated
41. Industry of raw materials on traditional medicine for humans 21021 Domestic capital: 100% Domestic capital: 100%
42. Industry of Batik:

–          Industry of written Batik;

–          Industry of stamp Batik;

–          The combination of written and stamp Batik Industry.

`13134 Domestic capital: 100% In the previous Investment List:

–          Industry of written Batik was reserved for Cooperatives and UMKM;

–          Industry of stamp Batik required partnership with Cooperatives and UMKM.

 

43. Industry of crackers, chips, Peyek and such (manufacturers and non manufacturers) 10794 Domestic capital: 100% Reserved for Cooperatives and UMKM
44. Retailer trade on liquor alcoholic beverages 47221 Distribution network and specially designated place. Require:

 

a.      Alcoholic Beverages Trading Business License (SIUP-MB);

b.      Distribution network and specially designated place.

45. Small retailer trade on liquor or alcoholic beverages 47826 Distribution network and specially designated place. a.      Alcoholic Beverages Trading Business License (SIUP-MB);

b.      Distribution network and specially designated place.

46. Activities of the travel bureau for umrah and Special Hajj 79122 Domestic capital: 100% and Muslim Previously not regulated.

*Update: On Tuesday, 2 March 2021, President Joko Widodo announced the revocation of the provision in the Positive Investment List regarding the opening of investment in the industry of liquor and beverages containing alcohol and malt, thus the industry of liquor and beverages containing alcohol and malt will be closed for investment.


FMB & Partners Law Firm assists clients with various legal issues that arise in operating business on a daily basis including providing legal advice, due diligence, and creating legal documentation. Contact us for e-commerce and technology company legal service and other legal services at admin@fmbpartner.com or click here to contact our Business Whatsapp (Admin FMB Partner Law Firm +62 815-1910-7778)

Follow us on FMB Partner social media pages:

Facebook Page

FMB Partner IG Page

FMB&Partner Law Firm IG Page

Read more

Pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik bagi Perusahaan Terbuka

Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) mengeluarkan Peraturan Nomor 16/POJK.04/2020 tentang Pelaksanaan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Perusahaan Terbuka Secara Elektronik (“POJK 16/2020”).

POJK 16/2020 mengatur proses pengambilan keputusan bisnis korporasi yang cepat dan tepat dalam penyelenggaraan RUPS Perusahaan Terbuka melalui media telekonferensi, video konferensi, atau sarana media elektronik lainnya. Perusahaan Terbuka dimungkinkan untuk menyelenggarakan RUPS secara elektronik, sehingga pelaksanaan RUPS dapat dilaksanakan dengan efektif dan efisien.

Pokok Pengaturan POJK 16/2020

1. Pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik merupakan alternatif pelaksanaan RUPS selain dilakukan secara fisik.
2. Pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik dapat dilakukan dengan menggunakan:

a. e-RUPS yang disediakan oleh Penyedia e-RUPS; atau
b. sistem yang disediakan oleh Perusahaan Terbuka.

3. Penyedia e-RUPS:

a. Lembaga Penyimpanan dan Penyelesaian yang ditunjuk OJK; atau
b. Pihak lain yang disetujui OJK.

4. Kewajiban Penyedia e-RUPS:

a. Terdaftar sebagai penyelenggara sistem elektronik
b. Menyediakan hak akses kepada Pengguna e-RUPS untuk dapat mengakses RUPS
c. Memiliki dan menetapkan prosedur operasional standar pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik melalui e-RUPS yang paling sedikit mencakup:

i. persyaratan dan tata cara pendaftaran dan/atau pemberian hak akses kepada Pengguna e-RUPS, termasuk pembatalan pendaftaran Pengguna e-RUPS;
ii. biaya pendaftaran dan/atau penggunaan e-RUPS;
iii. tata cara penggunaan e-RUPS;
iv. hak dan kewajiban Pengguna e-RUPS;
v. batasan akses penggunaan e-RUPS;
vi. kerahasiaan, keutuhan, dan ketersediaan informasi pelaksanaan RUPS yang terdapat pada e-RUPS;
vii. mekanisme pelaporan dan pengambilan data dalam rangka pemenuhan kewajiban pelaporan Perusahaan Terbuka;
viii. perlindungan data pribadi sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan; dan
ix. penghentian sementara waktu pemberian layanan kepada Pengguna e-RUPS.

d. Memastikan terlaksananya RUPS secara elektronik
e. Memastikan keamanan dan keandalan e-RUPS
f. Menginformasikan kepada Pengguna e-RUPS dalam hal terdapat perubahan atau pengembangan sistem termasuk penambahan layanan dan fitur e-RUPS
g. menyediakan rekam jejak audit terhadap seluruh kegiatan pemrosesan data di e-RUPS untuk keperluan pengawasan, penegakan hukum, penyelesaian sengketa, verifikasi, dan pengujian
h. memiliki dan menempatkan fasilitas pengganti pusat data dan pusat pemulihan bencana terkait penyelenggaraan e-RUPS di wilayah Indonesia pada tempat yang aman dan terpisah dari pusat data utama
i. memenuhi standar minimum sistem teknologi informasi, pengamanan teknologi informasi, gangguan dan kegagalan sistem, serta alih Kelola sistem teknologi informasi
j. menyimpan semua data pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik; dan
k. bertanggung jawab atas kerugian yang ditimbulkan karena kesalahan atau kelalaiannya dalam penyediaan dan pengelolaan e-RUPS

5. e-RUPS atau sistem yang disediakan oleh Perusahaan Terbuka memungkinkan semua peserta RUPS berpartisipasi dan berinteraksi dalam RUPS. Bentuk partisipasi dan interaksi tersebut dapat dilakukan melalui sarana audio, visual, audio visual, atau selain audio dan visual.

6. Teknis Pelaksanaan RUPS Secara Elektronik:

a. Tetap mewajibkan RUPS fisik secara terbatas (minimal pimpinan RUPS, 1 anggota direksi dan/atau 1 anggota dewan komisaris, dan profesi penunjang).
b. Pemegang saham diberikan kesempatan untuk hadir secara fisik, sepanjang Perusahaan Terbuka menyediakan kuota tertentu (tidak untuk seluruh pemegang saham).
c. Kehadiran pemegang saham secara elektronik dalam RUPS secara elektronik dapat menggantikan kehadiran pemegang saham secara fisik dan dihitung sebagai pemenuhan kuorum kehadiran.
d. Dalam kondisi tertentu, Perusahaan Terbuka dapat tidak melaksanakan RUPS secara fisik atau melakukan pembatasan kehadiran pemegang saham secara fisik baik sebagian maupun seluruhnya dalam pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik.
e. Kondisi tertentu tersebut ditetapkan oleh Pemerintah atau dengan persetujuan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.
f. Pemberian suara dapat dilakukan setelah pemanggilan sampai dengan pembukaan masing-masing mata acara.
g. Pemegang saham yang telah memberikan suara secara elektronik sebelum RUPS dilaksanakan dianggap sah menghadiri RUPS.
h. Risalah RUPS secara elektronik wajib dibuat dalam bentuk akta notariil oleh notaris yang terdaftar di OJK tanpa memerlukan tanda tangan dari para peserta RUPS.

7. Kegiatan RUPS Elektronik: RUPS dilaksanakan secara berurutan dengan efisien, yang harus memuat kegiatan paling sedikit:

a. pembukaan;
b. penetapan kuorum kehadiran;
c. pembahasan pertanyaan atau pendapat yang diajukan oleh pemegang saham atau kuasa pemegang saham yang diajukan secara elektronik pada setiap mata acara;
d. penetapan keputusan setiap mata acara berdasarkan kuorum pengambilan keputusan; dan
e. penutupan.

Sumber: POJK 16/2020, Otoritas Jasa Keuangan.

FMB & Partners Law Firm dapat membantu Anda dalam praktek hukum dan legal due diligence yang komprehensif pun membantu keperluan hukum serta legalitas mergers and acquisition bisnis Anda. Contact us for info and other legal practice at +62 21 5082 0033 or mail to mey@fmbpartner.com

_

Ikuti kami di akun resmi media sosial FMB Group:

Facebook Page

FMB Partner IG Page

FMB&Partner Law Firm IG Page

Read more

Force Majeure and Rebus Sic Stantibus Doctrine in times of Covid-19 Pandemic

Untuk versi berbahasa Indonesia klik di sini.

Through Presidential Decree (KEPPRES) No. 12/2020 concerning the Establishment of Corona Virus Disease (Covid-19) as Non-Natural Disaster, signed by President Joko Widodo on April 13, 2020, Covid-19 has just been declared as a ‘national disaster’. However, confusion has been raised over the legal consequences of the KEPPRES.

The most potential legal consequence that has been widely discussed in local media is whether the KEPPRES allows companies and business owners to claim Force Majeure? In which case, they are released from the obligations caused by the sudden arrival of an extraordinary event, which goes far beyond the control of the parties involved.

In this article, we will discuss Force Majeure and Rebus Sic Stantibus doctrine and their relation to this time of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Can the Covid-19 Pandemic be qualified as Force Majeure?

Etymologically Force Majeure originated from French which literally translates as “greater force”, and “keadaan memaksa” or “keadaan kahar” in Bahasa Indonesia.

The Indonesian Civil Code (ICC) does not provide a definition of Force Majeure, but Article 1244 and 1245 stipulate general provisions of Force Majeure which principally exempt debtors from all costs, losses, and interest as long as the debtor can prove the occurrence of Force Majeure event. In Article 1244 it is explained that:

“In the case of there is a reason the debtor must be sentenced to compensate the costs, losses, and interest, if the party unable to prove, that the non-fulfillment or delay of the fulfillment of an obligation on time in accordance with the agreement, due to an unexpected event, in which such event could not be accounted upon the party, all of the aforementioned only if there is no malice intent of the party.”

Furthermore, in Article 1245:

“Any cost, loss, and interest shall not be compensated if due to a forceful condition (overmacht) or due to an unintentional situation, the debtor is unable to provide or perform something that is required, or due to the aforementioned the debtor has done prohibited acts.”

Therefore, an event is considered to be Force Majeure if it meets the following elements:

1. the performance of the agreement is not possible due to unforeseen circumstance;
2. the circumstance occurs beyond the fault of the debtor;
3. the debtor is not accountable for the circumstance.

The Force Majeure concept that applies in Indonesia, there are 2 theories of Force Majeure:

1. Absolute Force Majeure
When it is impossible for the debtor to perform its obligations, for example, because the object of agreement is destroyed or no longer exists.

2. Relative Force Majeure
When it is still possible for the debtor to perform its obligations but at very great sacrifice.

The distinction between absolute and relative Force Majeure lies in the degree of impossibility. If the impossibility is absolute, it is no longer open to the possibility of change, then it becomes a forceful situation for the birth of an absolute Force Majeure. This impossibility does not only apply to the debtor itself, but also the impossibility of anyone under these conditions.

If the impossibility is still open to possibility, despite the great sacrifice, then this is a relative Force Majeure. If this obstacle disappears or subsides someday, it is still possible that the previous non-performance is requested again to be fulfilled by the debtor, but this time the creditor is not permitted to file for compensation of costs, losses, and interest.

By looking at the Force Majeure elements, the Covid-19 outbreak can be categorized as a Force Majeure because the Covid-19 situation itself is an unexpected event that is beyond human control, the condition cannot be avoided and is not caused by the error/negligence of the parties.

Covid-19 Pandemic as Force Majeure Event

After the release of KEPPRES No. 12/2020, the establishment of the Covid-19 outbreak as a national disaster by the government can be qualified as Force Majeure but does not necessarily serve as a basis for obstruction of the performance of all types of agreements. Force Majeure must still be seen from the real conditions of obstacles that cause non-fulfillment of obligations in the agreement.

In the agreement, the parties generally agree on the limitations of Force Majeure events, if an agreement explicitly states that outbreaks or lockdowns are Force Majeure events, then Covid-19 Pandemic and lockdown by the government can be categorized as Force Majeure event.

If the agreement does not explicitly mention an outbreak or lockdown as a Force Majeure event, but there is a phrase “including but not limited” or a clause stating “other events beyond the ability of the debtor” and the like which in a manner explicitly or implicitly stated in the agreement, then the performance of the agreement must be put into account if the Covid-19 situation is really compelling so that the debtor cannot perform its obligations.

If the performance of the agreement is an obligation to pay debts, then an outbreak or lockdown cannot abort the debt payment obligation, because such obligations can still be fulfilled by transferring through ATM, mobile or online banking. If the performance of the agreement is in the form of an obligation to do something that cannot be replaced by someone else, for example singing in a concert, the singer can be exempted from carrying out the obligations as promised on the grounds of the disease outbreak.

Rebus Sic Stantibus doctrine

Rebus Sic Stantibus or complete doctrine is “Omnis convention intellegitur rebus sic stantibus”. Literally means that an agreement is valid if the conditions are still the same as when the agreement was made. This means that if conditions change, the agreement will no longer be valid.

Rebus Sic Stantibus is regulated in The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UPICC), based on Article 6.2.2, the elements are:

1. the occurrence of events fundamentally alters the equilibrium of the contract either because the cost of a party’s performance has increased or because the value of the performance a party receives has diminished
2. the events occur or become known to the disadvantaged party after the conclusion of the contract
3. the events could not reasonably have been taken into account by the disadvantaged party at the time of the conclusion of the contract
4. the events are beyond the control of the disadvantaged party
5. the risk of the events was not assumed by the disadvantaged party

Rebus Sic Stantibus practice during the Covid-19 Pandemic

The embodiment of the Rebus Sic Stantibus principle in Indonesian positive law, so far only regulated in article 18 of Law No. 24 of 2000 concerning International Treaties which state that “international treaties end if there are fundamental changes that affect the implementation of the agreement”. In Indonesia, as a country that implements legal security, it implements absolute Pacta Sunt Servanda with only exclusion if there’s an impossibility to fulfill the performance of an agreement. Thus, Rebus Sic Stantibus is not recognized by the ICC.

Like the case of Force Majeure, if in the agreement explicitly stated elements or criteria of Rebus Sic Stantibus, then the provision binds the parties as to the law. As a result, Rebus Sic Stantibus provides the disadvantaged party the right to demand renegotiation of the agreement. However, if it is not stated in the agreement, then laws and propriety shall prevail.

Similarities and differences between Force Majeure and Rebus Sic Stantibus/Hardship

On the similarity, Force Majeure and Rebus Sic Stantibus both are unforeseen and unexpected events to occur when the agreement is agreed upon, they occur beyond the debtor’s errors and risks.

With Force Majeure, the debtor is excused from performing its obligations due to an unforeseen circumstance, which if It’s forced to continue performing its obligations, then it will face severe conditions due to physical and law obstructions. Thus, the obstruction on Force Majeure must not be due to economic reasons. Physical obstruction, for example in the form of natural disasters, that cause the transportation routes disrupted and goods cannot be delivered on time. While law obstruction meant, for example, occurs because of a sudden amendment of regulation that is related and is the basis of the contract. Say for instance, at first the object of the agreement is legal to be traded, but then declared illegal by such regulation.

Force Majeure essentially does not make economic difficulties as an excuse, for example because debtors are in debt or even bankrupt.

However, the Rebus Sic Stantibus principle allows economic constraints to be used as a basis of non-performance. This reason is acceptable, for example, the debtor cannot fulfill the performance of the contract due to the contents of the agreement itself is already burdensome economically with a very heavy interest expense.

The establishment of the Covid-19 outbreak as a national disaster by the government may be qualified as Force Majeure but it cannot automatically be used as a basis for the inability of a party to fulfill its obligations. It is necessary to prove that the inability of a party to perform its obligations is directly caused by the Covid-19 Pandemic.

As for the Agreement made prior to the Covid-19 Pandemic, if there’s clause stipulates that an outbreak (Pandemic Covid-19) and closure of access by the government (lockdown) as Force Majeure, the Covid-19 Pandemic can be used as the basis for the inability of a party to perform its obligations. Similarly, if in the agreement explicitly stated elements or criteria of Rebus Sic Stantibus, then the provision binds the parties as to the law. As a result, Rebus Sic Stantibus provides the disadvantaged party the right to demand renegotiation of the agreement. However, if it is not stated in the agreement, then laws and propriety shall prevail.

FMB & Partners Law Firm assists clients with various legal issues that arise in operating business on a daily basis including providing legal advice, due diligence, and creating legal documentation. Contact us for e-commerce and technology company legal service and other legal services at +62 21 5082 0033 or mail to mey@fmbpartner.com

Follow us on FMB Partner social media pages:

Facebook Page

FMB Partner IG Page

FMB & Partner Law Firm IG Page

 

Read more

5 Peraturan OJK Menangani Situasi Pandemi COVID-19

Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) mengeluarkan kebijakan mulai dari restrukturisasi pembiayaan bagi debitur hingga mengenai mekanisme RUPS Perusahaan Terbuka secara elektronik.

Guna menahan efek lanjut pandemik Covid-19 dan membantu pergerakan roda perekonomian nasional, serta merupakan tindak lanjut atas terbitnya Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1/2020 tentang Kebijakan Keuangan Negara dan Stabilitas Sistem Keuangan untuk Penanganan Pandemi Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) dan/atau Dalam Rangka Menghadapi Ancaman yang Membahayakan Perekonomian Nasional dan/atau Stabilitas Sistem Keuangan, OJK menetapkan 5 Peraturan OJK (POJK):

1. POJK No. 14/POJK.05/2020 Tentang Kebijakan Countercyclical Dampak Penyebaran Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bagi Lembaga Jasa Keuangan Non-Bank

Aturan ini memuat perihal pemberian restrukturisasi pembiayaan bagi debitur yang terdampak COVID-19, dengan berbagai ketentuan:

    1. Batas waktu penyampaian laporan berkala;
    2. Pelaksanaan penilaian kemampuan dan kepatutan;
    3. Penetapan kualitas aset berupa Pembiayaan dan Restrukturisasi Pembiayaan;
    4. Perhitungan tingkat solvabilitas perusahaan asuransi, perusahaan asuransi syariah, perusahaan reasuransi, dan perusahaan reasuransi syariah;
    5. Perhitungan kualitas pendanaan dana pensiun yang menyelenggarakan program pensiun manfaat pasti; dan
    6. Pelaksanaan ketentuan pengelolaan aset sesuai kelompok peserta (life cycle fund) bagi dana pensiun yang menyelenggarakan program pensiun iuran pasti.

2. POJK No 15/POJK.04/2020 Tentang Rencana dan Penyelenggaraan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Perusahaan Terbuka

POJK yang dikeluarkan sebagai perubahan atas POJK No.32/POJK.04/2014 ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan partisipasi pemegang saham dalam RUPS Perusahaan Terbuka, khususnya dalam pembentukan kuorum kehadiran. Pemegang saham dapat melakukan pemberian kuasa secara elektronik kepada pihak ketiga untuk mewakilinya hadir dan memberikan suara dalam RUPS.

POJK tersebut mengatur mengenai:

    1. Ketentuan mengenai pemberitahuan mata acara, pengumuman, dan pemanggilan RUPS;
    2. Kewajiban Perusahaan Terbuka untuk menyediakan alternatif pemberian kuasa secara elektronik bagi pemegang saham untuk hadir dan memberikan suara dalam RUPS;
    3. Pemberian kuasa secara elektronik dilakukan melalui Sistem Penyelenggaraan RUPS Secara Elektronik (e-RUPS) yang disediakan oleh Penyedia e-RUPS atau sistem yang disediakan oleh Perusahaan Terbuka;
    4. Pihak yang dapat menerima kuasa secara elektronik meliputi:
      1. Partisipan yang mengadministrasikan sub rekening efek/efek milik pemegang saham
      2. Pihak yang disediakan oleh Perusahaan Terbuka, atau
      3. Pihak yang ditunjuk oleh pemegang saham
    5. Kegiatan Penyedia e-RUPS hanya dapat dilakukan oleh Lembaga Penyimpanan dan Penyelesaian yang ditunjuk oleh OJK atau Pihak lain yang disetujui OJK.

3. POJK No. 16/POJK.04/2020 Tentang Pelaksanaan RUPS Terbuka Secara Elektronik

Perusahaan Terbuka dimungkinkan untuk menyelenggarakan RUPS secara elektronik, dengan ketentuan sebagai berikut:

    1. Tetap mewajibkan RUPS fisik secara terbatas (minimal pimpinan RUPS, 1 anggota direksi dan/atau 1 anggota dewan komisaris, dan profesi penunjang)
    2. Pemegang saham diberikan kesempatan untuk hadir secara fisik sepanjang Perusahaan Terbuka menyediakan kuota tertentu.
    3. Kehadiran pemegang saham secara elektronik dalam RUPS secara elektronik dapat menggantikan kehadiran pemegang saham secara fisik dan dianggap memenuhi kuorum
    4. Dalam keadaan tertentu, RUPS fisik dapat tidak dilaksanakan atau melakukan pembatasan kehadiran pemegang saham secara fisik baik sebagian maupun seluruhnya dalam pelaksanaan RUPS secara elektronik
    5. Kondisi tertentu tersebut ditetapkan oleh Pemerintah atas persetujuan OJK.

4. POJK No 17/POJK.04/2020 Tentang Transaksi Material dan Perubahan Kegiatan Usaha

Peraturan ini ditetapkan dalam rangka mendukung amanat dalam Pasal 23 ayat (1) huruf b Perppu No 1 Tahun 2020 dan merupakan perubahan atas Peraturan Bapepam dan LK Nomor IX.E.2 tentang Transaksi Material dan Perubahan Kegiatan Usaha Utama. Aturan tersebut memuat ketentuan:

    1. Perluasan cakupan definisi Transaksi Material yaitu setiap transaksi yang dilakukan oleh Perusahaan Terbuka atau Perusahaan Terkendali yang memenuhi batasan nilai sebagaimana diatur dalam POJK
    2. Perluasan batasan nilai Transaksi Material, semua nilai transaksi sama dengan 20% atau lebih dari ekuitas Perusahaan terbuka, menjadi nilai transaksi sama dengan 20% atau lebih dari ekuitas Perusahaan Terbuka dan apabila Perusahaan Terbuka mempunyai ekuitas negatif maka perhitungan nilai transaksi sama dengan 10% atau lebih dari total aset Perusahaan Terbuka
    3. Penyempurnaan lingkup Transaksi Material sehingga mencakup antara lain:
    4. Transaksi Materia yang mengganggu kelangsungan usaha
    5. Transaksi restrukturisasi BUMN
    6. Transaksi yang dilakukan oleh lembaga jasa keuangan dalam kondisi tertentu
    7. Dilusi yang nilainya material
    8. Pengaturan dalam POJK memberikan pengecualian bagi lembaga jasa keuangan yang melakukan Transaksi Material dikecualikan dari kewajiban melakukan keterbukaan informasi kepada publik, namun tetap wajib lapor ke OJK

Seluruh ketentuan dalam peraturan ini berlaku enam bulan setelah diundangkan kecuali pengaturan yang memberikan pengecualian bagi lembaga jasa keuangan dalam kondisi tertentu dari kewajiban melakukan prinsip keterbukaan di bidang Pasar Modal.

5. POJK No 18/POJK.03/2020 tentang Perintah Tertulis Untuk Penanganan Permasalahan Bank

POJK ini mengamanatkan OJK untuk mengambil langkah-langkah yang diperlukan untuk menjaga stabilitas sistem keuangan khususnya pada sektor perbankan sebagai penanganan atas dampak COVID-19. Secara umum POJK ini memuat ketentuan:

    1. Ruang lingkup pengaturan berlaku bagi Bank yaitu Bank Umum Konvensional (BUK), Bank Umum Syariah (BUS), Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR), Bank Pembiayaan Rakyat Syariah (BPRS) dan kantor cabang dari bank yang berkedudukan di luar negeri.
    2. Kewenangan OJK memberikan Perintah Tertulis kepada Bank untuk melakukan penggabungan, peleburan, pengambilalihan dan/atau integrasi dan menerima penggabungan, peleburan, pengambilalihan dan/atau integrasi
    3. Perintah Tertulis diberikan kepada bank yang memenuhi kriteria berdasarkan penilaian OJK
    4. Kewajiban kepada Bank yang diberikan Perintah Tertulis untuk menyusun rencana tindak, serta melaksanakan dan menjaga kelancaran proses penggabungan, peleburan, pengambilalihan, dan/atau integrasi sesuai dengan rencana tindak
    5. Dalam pelaksanaan Perintah Tertulis oleh Bank untuk melakukan maupun menerima penggabungan, peleburan, pengambilalihan, dan/atau integrasi:
      1. Terdapat beberapa penyesuaian terhadap proses penggabungan, peleburan, pengambilalihan, dan/atau integrasi
      2. Bagi BUK atau BUS, berdasarkan persetujuan OJK dapat dikecualikan dari ketentuan mengenai kepemilikan tunggal pada perbankan Indonesia, kepemilikan saham bank umum, dan/atau batas waktu pemenuhan modal inti minimum
      3. Bagi BPR atau BPRS, jaringan kantor tetap dapat dipertahankan sesuai dengan wilayah jaringan kantor BPR atau BPRS yang telah berdiri.

Sumber: Kontan.

FMB & Partners Law Firm dapat membantu Anda dalam praktek hukum dan legal due diligence yang komprehensif pun membantu keperluan hukum serta legalitas mergers and acquisition bisnis Anda. Contact us for info and other legal practice at +62 21 5082 0033 or mail to mey@fmbpartner.com

_

Ikuti kami di akun resmi media sosial FMB Group:

Facebook Page

FMB Partner IG Page

FMB&Partner Law Firm IG Page

Read more

What’s Next for Social Media in Indonesia?

How to make the most of Indonesia’s new Digital Platform law.

In late 2019, the Indonesian government decided to establish the nation’s new Digital Platform Law (PP PSTE no. 71/2019 on the Government Regulation on the Implementation of Electronic and Transaction System). The law, which revised the previous law (PP PSTE no. 82/2012), imposed a number of obligations on electronic system companies, not to mention social media companies. It requires social media companies to control the circulation of information on their platform, as well as protecting user data. However, merely placing obligations on social media companies will not be enough. The law needs follow-up in a few key areas.

First, the government and social media companies must establish a shared understanding of what counts as “restricted content.” In article 5, the Digital Platform Law orders social media companies to ensure that their platforms do not contain or accommodate the spread of restricted content. However, social media companies don’t always adhere to this policy. This is because both parties understand the term “restricted content” differently.

As mentioned in article 45 of the UU no. 19/2016 (the law that revises the Electronic Information and Transaction Law) the Indonesian government uses the term “restricted content” (“konten terlarang”). The term encompasses gambling, violation of moral code, blasphemy and/or defamation, extortion and/or threat, and hate-speech and false news. This definition carries a heavy political accent for two reasons: first, because the term tends to connote what the Indonesian government perceives as a threat, and second because it hands the Indonesian government the legal foundation to actually control the perceived threat and order its removal.

This definition is distinct from social media companies’ definition of restricted content. Social media companies like Facebook and Twitter don’t talk about restricted content but “harmful content” (“konten berbahaya”). They put harmful content, generally, into two categories: content that should be removed and content that should only be limited. The first category usually applies to content deemed to violate the companies’ policies, such as graphic content, bullying, violent content, adult nudity, etc. In this case, social media companies and the Indonesian government are in agreement.

However, the second category is different. Social media companies define the second category of “harmful content” as content that is not violating company policy yet impedes users from receiving authentic information. One of the major instances is false news (disinformation). Facebook argues that disinformation should only be reduced, not removed, due to the vague interpretation of what constitutes disinformation versus opinion. Twitter seconds this, arguing that disinformation should not be taken down since it does not harm the principle of democracy in the sense that it does not suppress voter turnout. While social media companies desire to reduce this type of “harmful content,” the Indonesian government demands its removal.

With these differences, social media companies are unlikely to comply with the Indonesian government’s order since they perceive the risk posed by each type of restricted content differently. To solve this problem, the Indonesian government, social media companies, and social media users need to have further discussion defining and responding to restricted content. The approved definition and response should provide protection for vulnerable communities.

Second, Indonesia’s government should encourage social media users to be more proactive. Indonesia’s current reporting mechanism suggests that the Indonesian government will proactively restrain content found to violate the new law. Although no objection has been raised to this authority, this doesn’t seem a very sound model for the future of content governance in Indonesia.

Of course, there are some interrelated issues that demand the proactive involvement of the government. Content that promotes terrorism, for instance, needs social media companies and the government to collaborate in exchanging information regarding terrorist organizations. However, the response should differ in other cases, such as disinformation. As previously argued, opinion and satire are often misinterpreted as disinformation. In spite of the Indonesian government’s duty to prevent potential unrest caused by deceptive information, its impartiality toward any content that does not uphold its agenda is uncertain. Therefore, the main actors in combating disinformation should not be the government but instead the users — both individuals and communities.

The Indonesian government should start encouraging individuals and communities to bear the duty to constrain the spread of disinformation on social media platforms by actively reporting content deemed to be violating the social media content policy. Social media companies should also carry out actions with similar goals. Aside from that, it is also important for social media companies to provide and promote an easily viewed and understood in-platform reporting mechanism. Social media companies have to make sure that content that is being reported by individuals and communities is acknowledged with a real response, without the company having to be pressured by the government.

This article originally posted by The Diplomat.

This publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Any reliance on the material contained herein is at the user’s own risk. You should contact a lawyer in your jurisdiction if you require legal advice.


FMB & Partners Law Firm assists clients with various legal issues that arise in operating business on a daily basis including providing legal advice, due diligence and creating legal documentation. Contact us for e-commerce and technology company legal service and other legal services at +62 21 5082 0033 or mail to mey@fmbpartner.com

Follow us on FMB Partner social media pages:

Facebook Page

FMB Partner IG Page

FMB & Partner Law Firm IG Page

Read more

2020, Fintech Company is restricted?

How do you let your Fintech Company pass?

Fintech business in Indonesia until the end of 2019 is increasingly rising. As this business grows, naturally it is followed by government regulations so that they can take care of licensing at the Financial Services Authority (OJK).

But entering 2020, OJK will examine the possibility of restrictions on fintech companies, especially fintech financing (P2P lending) it is said because OJK wants the development of the number of fintech to be balanced with the number of customers.

Until the regulation is decided by the OJK, up to now one of the requirements for obtaining a registered status to obtain a permit from OJK is, of course, the financial statements owned by the fintech company.

Furthermore, has this matter become a consideration for management, how has the reporting system been implemented so far, has it covered all the prerequisites needed for licensing at the OJK?

The OJK will certainly ask about the company’s vision and mission, how to solve technology-related problems, to the existing economic problems, including how financial reporting systems owned by Fintech company. This prevents the existence of Fintech companies that have less capital which can be risky for future customers.

Are your financial statements ready? Have you conducted audits in companies related to the current financial system?


We assist clients with various legal issues that arise in operating business on a daily basis including providing legal advice, due diligence and creating legal documentation such as PSE and POJK13 certification documents. Contact us for e-commerce and technology legal service at +62 21 5082 0033 or mail to mey@fmbpartner.com

Follow us on FMB Partner social media pages:

Facebook Page

FMB Partner IG Page

FMB & Partner Law Firm IG Page


Read more

Mitigating the Risk of Economic Crimes

In Indonesia, there are many forms of economic crime like smuggling, tax evasion, drug trafficking, human trafficking, violation of copyrights, bank frauds, embezzlement, credit card fraud and fraud of certificates of bills of lading. Indonesia has criminalized money laundering but they are facing many difficulties in implementing the laws. There are laws controlling economic crime relating to banking, copyright, trade and service marks, and there is a provision in Law No. 15 of 2002 which criminalizes money laundering (amended by Law No. 25 of 2003).

Generally, the perception of the type and amount of economic crime which occurs in Indonesia accords with the reported instances of economic crime. The notable exceptions to this statement involve asset misappropriation and money laundering. Only 15.6% of companies in Indonesia perceive asset misappropriation as prevalent economic crime, compared to 31.9% of companies reporting incidents over the past two years. As to money laundering, the perceived risk of occurrence is 16.4% compared to reported incidents of 2.8%.

In general Indonesia companies have realized their exposure to economic crimes by taking some detection and prevention measures. 85.3% of these companies surveyed have more than 5 methods in place, as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1 Mitigating risk of Economic Crime

Methods

Figure.2 on the following page shows that almost half of the economic crime cases detected in Indonesia were initially identified by tipping-mechanisms, including whistle-blower systems, and tip-offs from internal and external sources.

Figure-2 Mitigating risk of Economic Crime

Indonesian companies are increasingly promoting whistle-blowing policies as an integral part of their risk management program. When this detection tool is correctly implemented, it has the strong potential of effectively uncovering fraud–increasingly replacing the chance element of anonymous tip-offs.

Another proven detection method is an internal audit, where detection occurs in 27% cases. There are several detection measures that appear to be effective globally but not been reported as being effective in Indonesia such as corporate security, audit committees, rotation of staff and electronic automated suspicious transaction report systems.


We assist clients with various legal issues that arise in operating business on a daily basis including providing legal advice and creating legal documentation such as contracts. Contact us for corporate practice service at +62 21 5082 0033 or mail to mey@fmbpartner.com

Follow us on FMB Partner social media pages:

Facebook Page

FMB Partner IG Page

FMB & Partner Law Firm IG Page

Read more

Hati hati Fintech Ilegal

Industri fintech merupakan bagian dari ekonomi digital atau industri 4.0. Transaksi, melakukan pinjaman uang tanpa tatap muka, gerakan non-tunai  adalah hasil dari industri fintech yang berkembang pesat. Namun, di tengah perkembangan fintech Indonesia, tidak sedikit masyarakat yang tidak menyadari apakah penyelenggara fintech yang meminjamkan dana merupakan perusahaan yang legal atau ilegal.

Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) telah mengatur keberadaan penyelenggara fintech berjenis Peer-to-Peer Lending (P2PL) pada Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 77/POJK.01/2016 tentang Layanan Pinjam Meminjam Uang Berbasis Teknologi Informasi (POJK 77/2016). POJK 77/2016 sebagai kerangka hukum fintech berjenis P2PL mewajibkan Penyelenggara/platform fintech lending untuk mengedepankan keterbukaan informasi terhadap calon pemberi pinjaman dan peminjamnya agar dapat menilai tingkat risiko peminjam dan menentukan tingkat bunga.

Menjamurnya penyelenggara fintech ‘nakal’ membuat OJK juga mengeluarkan kebijakan Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 13/POJK.02/2018 tentang Inovasi Keuangan Digital di Sektor Jasa Keuangan (POJK 13/2018) yang memayungi pengawasan dan pengaturan industri fintech. Inovasi Keuangan Digital (IKD) adalah sebutan fintech dari OJK yang didefinisikan sebagai aktivitas pembaruan proses bisnis, model bisnis, dan instrumen keuangan yang memberikan nilai tambah baru di sektor jasa keuangan dengan melibatkan ekosistem digital.

OJK merasa inovasi keuangan digital perlu diarahkan agar menghasilkan inovasi yang bertanggung jawab, aman, mengedepankan perlindungan konsumen dan memiliki risiko yang terkelola dengan baik. Sesuai dengan POJK 77/2016, OJK mengawasi penyelenggara P2PL yang berstatus terdaftar atau berizin dan sampai Februari 2019 sudah ada 99 perusahaan fintech P2PL yang terdaftar dan berizin OJK.

Adapun hingga pertengahan Maret 2019, Satgas Waspada Investasi telah menghentikan 168 entitas fintech ilegal. Satgas juga mengklaim telah mendeteksi 803 entitas fintech ilegal dan meminta Kemkominfo untuk menutup fintech ilegal tersebut.

fintech ilegal data ojk

Sumber: OJK

Maraknya praktik fintech ilegal tentu mengganggu kegiatan industri yang berizin. OJK sudah memastikan bahwa penyelenggara fintech P2PL yang tidak terdaftar atau tidak berizin dari OJK dikategorikan sebagai P2PL ilegal. Pemerintah pun mengimbau masyarakat untuk tidak menggunakan layanan peminjaman online dari fintech P2PL jika tidak terdesak, terlebih lagi layanan/penyelenggara pinjam online ilegal. OJK mengingatkan keberadaan P2PL ilegal tidak dalam pengawasan pihak manapun, sehingga transaksi dengan pihak P2PL ilegal sangat berisiko tinggi bagi para penggunanya.

Salah satu cara mewaspadai fintech P2PL ilegal adalah dengan minimnya syarat atau ketentuan layanan, informasi alamat, telepon dan call center dari kantor fintech tersebut. Otorisasi akses aplikasi saat pemasangan di gawai pun perlu diperhatikan.

Pasalnya, setiap fintech yang telah terdaftar/berizin dari OJK telah dilarang untuk mengakses daftar kontak, berkas gambar dan informasi pribadi dari gawai pengguna fintech lending yang tidak berhubungan langsung dengan pengguna. Hal ini dikuatkan dengan tindakan preventif Asosiasi Fintech Pendanaan Bersama Indonesia (AFPI) yang telah membentuk komite etik untuk mengawasi pelaksanaan kode etik operasional perusahaan fintech.

Hal ini dilakukan untuk memberi perlindungan konsumen. Salah satu isi dari kode perilaku tersebut adalah larangan mengakses kontak, layanan pesan singkat dan penetapan biaya pinjaman maksimal. Sehubungan dengan biaya pinjaman, perusahaan fintech tidak boleh menetapkan biaya pinjaman lebih dari 0,8 persen per hari dengan penagihan maksimal 90 hari. Asosiasi juga bekerja sama dengan perusahaan gerbang pembayaran ataupayment gateway untuk mencegah kehadiran fintech ilegal. Perusahaan payment gateway berkomunikasi dengan asosiasi agar tidak melayani perusahaan fintech ilegal.

Dalam perkembangan industri 4.0, salah satu kebutuhan fintech terhadap pasar modal saat ini adalah kebutuhan pemenuhan perizinan. Pada hal ini, konsultan hukum berperan memastikan rencana investor fintech sesuai dengan aturan dan regulasi di Indonesia. Selain itu, konsultan hukum juga dapat mendampingi pelaku usaha saat berhadapan dengan regulator untuk memperoleh perizinan.

Bingung menentukan perizinan usaha yang Anda butuhkan? Tidak ingin ada kendala dalam menjalankan bisnis Anda? FMB & Partner Lawfirm siap membantu Anda, silakan sapa kami di 02150820033 dan mey@fmbpartner.com

Artikel diolah dari berbagai sumber. 

Follow us on FMB Partner social media pages:

Facebook Page

Instagram Page

Read more