PRESIDENT Prabowo has granted rehabilitation to Ira Puspadewi, President Director of ASDP, along with two of her colleagues. The decision is widely seen as a step forward, perhaps even a turning point in the era of arbitrary designations of suspects. For too long, law-enforcement authorities have worn blinders, misapplied anti-corruption statutes and misunderstood the very nature of “state loss.”
Ira Puspadewi is not the only professional turned into a convict. Many share her fate yet remain behind bars.
Similar cases have befallen directors of three regional development banks, namely BPD DKI, BPD Central Java, and BPD West Java–Banten, along with six executives of PT Aneka Tambang Tbk who were accused of inflicting Rp9 trillion in losses on the state. It is absurd.
These individuals were accused of harming the state even though, at the time the directors approved credit for PT Sritex, the company was still financially sound, profitable and liquid. That Sritex later deteriorated due to market conditions is a business risk, not a crime. Compa- rable cases have emerged at state-owned banks, including at Bank Raya (Agro) under the Bengkulu High Prosecutor’s Office, where nine retired executives are now jailed over a Rp119 billion bad loan, again merely because the credit eventually soured due to business risk. It is chilling.
The six Antam executives, accused of Rp9 trillion in losses, are no different. Most had already retired. Their lives in no way resemble those of “grand corruptors.” Some live in narrow alleyways, some sold their wedding rings to repair leaking roofs, and one even had a child laid off because the father was labelled a criminal.
In truth, the case revolved around a long-established business model that functioned within the limits of Antam’s capital. The company simply lacked the funds to purchase enough gold. Yet suddenly, the “state loss” clause was invoked, producing an astronomical figure of Rp9 trillion, while the accused languish in hardship.
Many capable professionals who never enjoyed the fruits of corruption have nonetheless been convicted. calculated choices without fear of criminalization when outcomes deviate from expectations.
But today, the public is witnessing a troubling phenomenon. This once-sacred principle is being trampled, replaced by a naïve and dangerous “zero-risk” mindset. Instead of being encouraged to innovate and take uystrategic decisions, directors are threatened with criminal charges when a business decision fails to produce the desired results.
The divergence in perspectives is stark. Bankers assess the soundness of a loan when it is performing.
Law-enforcement authorities assess it only after it has gone bad. Once a loan is non-performing, anything can be construed as wrong, even signing a document with a black pen.
What is needed? According to the Infobank Institute, two fundamental reforms.
First, strengthen understanding of good faith. Law- enforcement officers must be trained to distinguish between ordinary business failure and intentional corporate wrongdoing. Administrative missteps should be resolved administratively, not criminally.
Second, clearly separate civil and criminal domains. Losses resulting from business decisions made in good faith should be addressed through civil litigation. Criminal charges must be reserved for cases involving men’s rea, intentional wrongdoing, corruption, collusion or embezzlement.
Yet courts today often appear blind to the spirit of justice. A climate of fear has taken hold within Indonesia’s judiciary. Judges fear acquitting defendants in high-profile “state loss” cases brought by prosecutors. At best, they cut sentences in half, which is already seen as bold.
Acquittals are rare, as judges fear public suspicion. If we continue criminalizing business judgment, we risk extinguishing the engine of economic progress.
Talented professionals will avoid leading state-owned enterprises or strategic corporations. They will choose the safest path: doing nothing. Ultimately, the nation and its people will pay the price, as innovation and competitiveness are throttled.
We must stop condemning good intentions simply because outcomes are uncertain. If we want a vibrant economy, President Prabowo must restore the business judgment rule to its rightful and respected place, as a safeguard for those bold enough to drive national progress with clarity and responsibility. Corruption must indeed be pursued to the ends of the earth, but criminalizing policy decisions destroys the very soul of justice.
We must distinguish corruption from legitimate business judgment. That is why the rehabilitation of Ira Puspadewi should mark a turning point, restoring the business judgment rule that has long been buried under prosecutorial overreach. Stop criminalizing policy decisions. It is time to restore the moral spirit of the judiciary.
Ira Puspadewi is not the only professional turned into a convict. Many share her fate yet remain behind bars.
