Juridical Analysis of ICC Decision Number 05/ICC-I/2025 concerning Alleged Violations of Article 5 of Law Number 5 of 1999 by AFPI Member Lending Companies (P2P)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68211/nomosethica.v1i2.33Keywords:
ICC Decision No. 5/ICC-l-2025, P2P Lending, the law of competition, Price Fixing, AFPI, ICC, Fintech Lending, Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999, Administrative sanctions, Unfair Business CompetitionAbstract
The presence of Peer to Peer (P2P) Lending services or online loans has made it easier to access funding by bringing together lenders and borrowers online. In order for this industry to grow sustainably, business competition in it must run in a healthy manner. However, problems arose when 97 P2P Lending companies that are members of the Indonesian Joint Funding Fintech Association (AFPI) allegedly agreed to set the maximum loan interest rate limit. This alleged cartel was then examined by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (ICC) through Decision Number 05/ICC-I/2025. This study aims to analyze the legal considerations of the ICC commission panel in deciding the case and test its suitability with Article 5 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition. The method used is normative legal research by combining a legislative approach and a case approach. The results of the study show that the interest rate upper limit agreement through the association forum has met the elements of the price fixing agreement. This action is considered to limit the independence of each company in determining tariffs competitively in the market. Based on these findings, ICC stated that the reported defendants were proven to have violated the law and imposed administrative fines. The determination of the nominal fine is carried out proportionally by considering the contribution of the violation, cooperative attitude during the trial, and the financial condition of each business actor. This study concludes that ICC's decision is in line with the legal principles of business competition and is an important momentum in maintaining a healthy business climate in the technology-based financial industry in Indonesia.
References
[1] Tampubolon, H.R. "The Ins and Outs of Peer To Peer Lending as a New Form of Finance in Indonesia," Journal of Bina Mulia Hukum, 3, no. 2 (2019): 188-198.
[2] Saputra, A.S. "Peer To Peer Lending in Indonesia and Some of Its Problems," Journal of Veritas et Justitia, 5, no. 1 (2019): 238-261.
[3] Burhanuddin, S.F. "Application of Business Competition Law to Prevent Monopolistic Practices in the Corporate Business Environment," Journal of Interdisciplinary Legal Perspectives, 1, no. 1 (2024): 80-97.
[4] Lubis, M.A. & Putra, M.F.M. "Peer To Peer (P2P) Lending: Legal Relationship of the Parties, Default, and Legality," USM Law Review Journal, 5, no.1 (2022): 188-204.
[5] Annas Muhammad & Ansori, M.A. "Problems in Determining Interest in Peer-to-Peer Lending in Indonesia," Journal of Legal Media, 28, no. 1 (2021): 102-116.
[6] Simbolon, Alum. "The Approach Taken by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission to Determine Violations in Business Competition Law," Ius Quia Iustum Legal Journal, 20, no. 2 (2013): 186-206
[7] Nulqorim Karim & Ansari, T.S. "The Impact of Online Loan Problems and Legal Protection for Consumers in Loan Agreements," Scientific Journal of Education Forum, 10, no. 19 (2024): 477-488.
[8] Nugroho, A.D. (2012). Business Competition Law in Indonesia: In Theory and Practice and Application of Its Law. Jakarta: Prenadamedia Group, 122-124.
[9] Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2019). Normative Law Research : A Brief Review, Jakarta : Rajafrafindo Persada.12.
[10] Purnamasari, Irma Devita. (2014). "Banking Guarantee Law: Smart, Easy, and Wise Tips for Understanding Problems," Bandung: Kaifa. 9-10.
[11] DWN, "The Largest Trial in ICC's History, 97 Loan Companies Become Reported for Alleged Cartels", Kompas.com, August 14, 2025, http://kilasbadannegara.kompas.com/kppu/read/2025/08/14/223017326/sidang-terbesar-dalam-sejarah-kppu-97-perusahaan-pinjol-jadi-terlapor-dugaan, accessed on June 22, 2026, at 01.03 WIB
[12] Eva Fahas, "ICC Decides 97 Guilty Loans with a Total Fine of 755 Billion", Koran Pikiran Rakyat, March 30, 2026, https://koran.pikiran-rakyat.com/ekonomi/pr-30310107348/kppu-putuskan-97-pinjol-bersalah-dengan-total-denda-755-milyar, accessed on June 01 01.05 WIB
[13] Fitri Novia Heriani, "A Number of Notes on ICC's Decision in the Loan Case," Law Online.com, May 02, 2026, https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/sejumlah-catatan-atas-putusan-kppu-dalam-perkara-pinjol-lt69f5c3bb3e49c/?page=1, accessed on June 01 01.07 WIB
[14] "OJK Responds to ICC's Decision on the Interest Loan Cartel," Tempo.com, March 28, 2026, https://www.tempo.co/ekonomi/ojk-tanggapi-putusan-kppu-soal-kartel-bunga-pinjol-2124888, accessed on June 22, 2026, at 01.12 WIB.
[15] Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Competition.
[16] Regulation of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission Number 4 of 2011 concerning Guidelines Article 5 (Price Setting Agreement).
[17] Government Regulation Number 44 of 2021 concerning the Implementation of the Prohibition of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
[18] ICC Regulation Number 2 of 2021 concerning Guidelines for the Imposition of Sanctions for Violations of Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
[19] Law Number 4 of 2023 concerning the Development and Strengthening of the Financial Sector (PPSK).
[20] OJK Regulation Number 10/POJK.05/2022 concerning Information Technology-Based Joint Funding Services (LPBBTI).
[21] Financial Services Authority Circular Number 19/SEOJK.06/2023 concerning the Implementation of Information Technology-Based Joint Funding Services.
[22] ICC Decision Number 05/ICC-I/2025.
