THE DYNAMICS OF COURT DECISIONS IN THE CIVIL DISPUTE OVER GOLD SALES BETWEEN PT ANTAM TBK AND BUDI SAID AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF CIVIL LAW IN INDONESIA
Abstract
This study examines the litigation trajectory of the gold sales dispute between PT Aneka Tambang Tbk (Antam) and Budi Said across four judicial levels in Indonesia: the Surabaya District Court, the Surabaya High Court, the Supreme Court at the cassation stage, and two rounds of judicial review (Peninjauan Kembali). Employing a normative legal research design, the analysis draws on statutory provisions, court decisions, and scholarly literature to assess the application of tort elements in sale contracts. Findings reveal divergent interpretations of tort elements (unlawful act, loss, causation, and fault) at each judicial tier: the District Court and the Supreme Court (cassation and first judicial review) affirmed the presence of tort, obligating Antam to deliver 1.136 tons of gold or pay compensation; the High Court rejected the claim entirely; and the second judicial review reversed Antam’s obligation based on new criminal findings against Budi Said. These oscillating verdicts generate legal uncertainty, blur the line between breach of contract and tort, and underscore the need for harmonization between civil and criminal proceedings and the standardization of tort evidentiary rules. Recommended measures include issuing consistent Supreme Court jurisprudential guidelines, clarifying corporate authority in contractual engagements, and strengthening internal corporate oversight.
References
Amalia, N. (2012). Hukum Perikatan. Unimal Press.
Bagaskara, M. A., & Priyanto, I. M. D. (2020). Wanprestasi Pelaku Usaha dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli pada Transaksi Online (E-Commerce). Kertha Negara, 8(4), 59–69.
detik.com. (2025, March 19). Jungkat-jungkit Vonis Gugatan 1,1 Ton Emas Antam Vs Budi Said. Https://News.Detik.Com/Berita/d-7830389/Jungkat-Jungkit-Vonis-Gugatan-1-1-Ton-Emas-Antam-vs-Budi-Said#:~:Text=Sengkarut%20antara%20Antam%20dan%20Budi,136%20kg%20atau%201%2C1%20ton.
Elia, Kennardy, L., Kurniawan, Mi. H., & Putra, M. R. S. (2025). Tinjauan Yuridis Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Dalam Kasus Pelanggaran Kontrak Jual Beli di Indonesia. JALAKOTEK: Journal of Accounting Law Communication and Technology, 2(1), 297–305.
Fahlevi, M. E., Rusli, B., & Nazar, J. (2023). PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PERDATA ATAS WANPRESTASI DALAM PERJANJIAN JUAL BELI. Collegium Studiosum Journal, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.56301/csj.v6i2.1090
Fazriah, D. (2023). Tanggung Jawab Atas Terjadinya Wanprestasi yang Dilakukan oleh Debitur pada Saat Pelaksanaan Perjanjian. Das Sollen: Jurnal Kajian Kontemporer Hukum Dan Masyarakat, 1(2), 1–25.
Gaol, S. L. (2023). Itikad Baik dalam Pelaksanaan Hubungan Kontraktual sebagai Alasan Penjatuhan Putusan Lepas dalam Pertanggungjawaban Tindak Pidana Penipuan Berdasarkan Yurisprudensi. UNES Law Review, 5(4), 4835–4846.
Haetami, V., Abas, M., Rahmatiar, Y., & Lubis, A. (2024). Tinjauan Normatif tentang Tanggung Jawab Direksi terhadap Karyawan yang Melakukan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Memberikan Diskon Secara Sepihak Ditinjau Dari Doktrin Piercing The Corporate Veil dan Dihubungkan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (Studi Putusan Nomor 1666 K/Pdt/2022). UNES Law Review, 6(3), 8953–8962.
Handoko, D. (2015). Kekuasaan Kehakiman di Indonesia. Hawa dan AHWA.
Handoko, D. (2023). Delik-delik di Luar KUHP: Pencucian Uang, Perdagangan Orang, Pers dan Pornografi di Indonesia. Hawa dan AHWA.
idntimes.com. (2024, September 3). Eksepsi Budi Said Ditolak, PN Jaktim Lanjutkan Gugatan Antam. Https://Www.Idntimes.Com/Business/Economy/Ridwan-Aji-Pitoko-1/Eksepsi-Budi-Said-Ditolak-Pn-Jaktim-Lanjutkan-Gugatan-Antam.
Iskandar, S. A., & Adlhiyati, Z. (2024). Telaah Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum PT Antam dan Pertimbangan Hakim Pada Putusan Nomor 158/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Sby. Verstek, 12(1), 188–201.
kompas.com. (2024, December 27). Kasus Manipulasi Emas Antam, “Crazy Rich” Surabaya Budi Said Divonis 15 Tahun Penjara. Https://Nasional.Kompas.Com/Read/2024/12/27/11501781/Kasus-Manipulasi-Emas-Antam-Crazy-Rich-Surabaya-Budi-Said-Divonis-15-Tahun.
kompas.com. (2025, March 19). PK Dikabulkan, Antam Tak Perlu Bayar 1,1 Ton Emas ke Crazy Rich Budi Said. Https://Nasional.Kompas.Com/Read/2025/03/19/14341541/Pk-Dikabulkan-Antam-Tak-Perlu-Bayar-11-Ton-Emas-Ke-Crazy-Rich-Budi-Said.
kompas.tv. (2023, September 19). Kalah PK Gugatan 1,1 Ton Emas dari Budi Said, PT Antam Tunggu Salinan Putusan MA. Https://Www.Kompas.Tv/Nasional/444652/Kalah-Pk-Gugatan-1-1-Ton-Emas-Dari-Budi-Said-Pt-Antam-Tunggu-Salinan-Putusan-Ma?Page=all#:~:Text=JAKARTA%2C%20KOMPAS.TV%20,Pengusaha%20asal%20Surabaya%2C%20Budi%20Said.
Mahfuzh, A., Roisah, K., & Paramita Prabandari, A. P. (2021). Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli Kios (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Kupang Nomor 18/PDT.G/2016/PN.KPG). Notarius, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v14i2.43720
mahkamahagung.go.id. (2021a, January 13). Putusan PN Surabaya 158/Pdt.G/2020/PN Sby. Https://Putusan3.Mahkamahagung.Go.Id/Direktori/Download_file/E65cf740bc733f1813b9b60341eab50a/Pdf/Zaec21381aaceb4c98e7323231353339.
mahkamahagung.go.id. (2021b, August 19). Putusan PT Surabaya 371/PDT/2021/PT SBY. Https://Putusan3.Mahkamahagung.Go.Id/Direktori/Download_file/7a6602e46aa93290c855e23cac233a72/Pdf/Zaec19b1bad52a2884fc303832363037.
mahkamahagung.go.id. (2022, June 29). Putusan Mahkamah Agung 1666 K/Pdt/2022. Https://Putusan3.Mahkamahagung.Go.Id/Direktori/Download_file/Cae51ebd855b752f7641ef5fd89e270a/Pdf/Zaed1d243fd3ca9ca044313232383234.
mahkamahagung.go.id. (2025, March 11). Informasi Perkara Mahkamah Agung RI - 815 PK/PDT/2024. Https://Kepaniteraan.Mahkamahagung.Go.Id/Perkara/Perkara_detail.Php?Id=ef6f47cc-44e8-14e8-891f-30343334.
Putri, N. Z. M., & Sulastri. (2024). Civil Liability of Business Actors for Reverse Passing Off as an Unlawful Act. Daulat Hukum, 7(4), 430–442.
Rahman, A., Nasution, N. A., & Sitorus, H. Z. (2025). Keabsahan Suatu Perjanjian yang Dibuat Tanpa Menyematkan Nama Pihak yang Berjanji. Zaaken: Journal of Civil and Business Law, 6(1), 23–41.
Ratuwala, A., Ramziati, & Sastro, M. (2024). Tanggung Jawab Direksi Atas Kerugian Perseroan Akibat Wanprestasi (Studi Putusan Nomor 47/Pdt.G/2021/PN.Mtr). Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa (JIM-FH), 7(2), 13–30.
sipp.pn-surabayakota.go.id. (2023, September 12). Sistem Informasi Penelusuran Perkara Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya Nomor 158/Pdt.G/2020/PN Sby. Https://Sipp.Pn-Surabayakota.Go.Id/Show_detil/TFJDQXJSb0YycmVEU3h5Vm8yMk11N3RiQ29DaVgzZTdSaXZJT3c4bjVySUx6L1RjcW05aHhGQ0RnM0hhSUY2T2xDZ2JCc2pLRS9sOWpHUmRnZ2lyRUE9PQ==.
Sugiastuti, N. Y., Desmayanti, R., & Shahin, N. S. A. (2023). Sikap Hakim dalam Menerapkan Pasal 1321 KUHPerdata: Studi Putusan Pengadilan di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol30.iss3.art10
tempo.co. (2025, February 26). Pengadilan Tinggi Jakarta Perberat Hukuman Budi Said Jadi 16 Tahun Penjara Kasus Jual Beli Emas Antam. Https://Www.Tempo.Co/Hukum/Pengadilan-Tinggi-Jakarta-Perberat-Hukuman-Budi-Said-Jadi-16-Tahun-Penjara-Kasus-Jual-Beli-Emas-Antam-1212262.
Wahyuni, S. (2023). Resolution of Antam Gold Selling and Buying Disputes Reviewed From Economic Analysis of Law Theory. Journal of Social Research, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.55324/josr.v3i1.1669
Warta, I. M., Ni Putu Nandari, S., & Mandala, G. P. (2020). Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli Kain Tenun Songket Di Desa Sidemen. PARTA : Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, 1(1).
