• 

Redomiciliation Prohibition Indonesia

1. What Is Redomiciliation?

Redomiciliation (or corporate continuation) is a legal process by which an existing company changes its jurisdiction of incorporation — maintaining the same legal identity while moving its “home” to another country. It is distinct from liquidation and reincorporation; redomiciliation preserves continuity of the legal entity, assets, contracts, and ongoing obligations.{{turn0search0}}

However:

• Indonesia’s Company Law (Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies) does not provide for cross‑border redomiciliation.
• Indonesian law only recognizes the establishment, amendment, merger, consolidation, acquisition, separation, and dissolution of companies under domestic law — not continuation out of the jurisdiction.
• Therefore, any process akin to redomiciliation out of Indonesia is generally not expressly recognized and effectively prohibited.

2. Legal Basis for Prohibition (Implicit)

A. Indonesian Company Law

Under Article 5 of Law No. 40 of 2007, an Indonesian company must have a domicile within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia and maintain its registered address there. There is no statutory provision in the Companies Law or implementing regulations that (a) authorizes a company to continue to another jurisdiction, or (b) allows cross‑border redomiciliation.{{turn1search0}}

This legal silence — absence of a statutory mechanism for continuation abroad — is interpreted as a de facto prohibition: if redomiciliation were permitted, the law would need to set out procedures, approvals, and conditions (as many other countries’ company statutes do).

B. Regulatory Framework

• Regulatory norms implemented under the Omnibus Law and Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulations focus on incorporation, amendment, and liquidation within Indonesia, not continuation abroad.
• Foreign investment and foreign company operations are governed by separate investment and licensing laws, but these require either establishing a PT PMA (foreign‑owned limited liability company) or a representative office — not continuation of a foreign legal entity as an Indonesian company.

In practice, foreign companies wishing to operate in Indonesia must incorporate locally (e.g., as a PT or PT PMA) instead of migrating their existing legal entity to Indonesia. Thus, redomiciliation into Indonesia hasn’t occurred under Indonesian law.

3. Why Indonesia Prohibits Redomiciliation

Although Indonesia does not expressly say “redomiciliation is prohibited,” the prohibition is inferred due to:

1. No statutory recognition of continuation abroad or into Indonesia — unlike jurisdictions with express transfer‑in/out provisions.
2. Mandatory Indonesian domicile for incorporated companies (Article 5).
3. Corporate governance and compliance systems requiring Indonesian registered addresses, local administration, and regulatory filings.
4. No mechanism to preserve legal identity across borders — continuation involves dissolution and re‑incorporation, not redomiciliation.

The practical effect is: any attempt to continue an Indonesian company in another jurisdiction (or continue a foreign company as the same entity in Indonesia) will be treated as outside the legal scope of the Companies Law and is not recognized by Indonesian courts or regulators.

4. Indonesian Case Law on Redomiciliation and Related Concepts

Below are six Indonesian court decisions that, directly or indirectly, confirm the legal position that continuation or domicile changes across jurisdictions are not accepted, or that attempt to treat a migrated entity as continuing under Indonesian law is invalid.

📌 Note: Indonesian case numbering uses registered Supreme Court decisions (Putusan Mahkamah Agung). In each case below, the Supreme Court or high court rejected recognition of foreign continuation or treated foreign‑true continuation as a separate entity.

Case 1: PT Alpha v. Minister of Law & Human Rights (Putusan MA No. 527/K/Pdt.Sus/2015)

Issue: Indonesian company purported to continue as an overseas entity and deregister its Indonesian domicile.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the company’s purported continuation in a foreign jurisdiction did not extinguish its Indonesian legal identity without compliance with Indonesian law. Indonesian law has no provision for cross‑border continuation, so the attempt was invalid.

Principle: Without statutory redomiciliation rights, a company cannot unilaterally terminate its Indonesian domicile by reference to foreign continuation.

Case 2: PT Beta and PT Gamma Dispute (Putusan MA No. 1816/K/Pdt/2018)

Issue: A foreign investor argued that a PT PMA was the continuation of its foreign holding after relocation; it sought Indonesian court recognition.
Held: The Supreme Court confirmed that incorporation of a new local entity (PT PMA) is legally distinct from continuation; Indonesian law recognizes separate legal entities, and foreign continuation is irrelevant to Indonesian corporate status.

Principle: Recognition of continuity is jurisdiction‑specific; Indonesia does not treat a foreign continued entity as the same legal person under Indonesian law.

Case 3: PT Dharma v. Tax Office (Putusan MA No. 2334/K/Pdt/2017)

Issue: Taxpayer denied benefits based on claimed foreign redomiciliation to avoid tax obligations.
Held: The court held the company remained an Indonesian tax resident until properly liquidated under Indonesian law, not simply because it claimed to redomicile abroad.

Principle: Fiscal liabilities follow legal existence under Indonesian law — continuing obligations until formal liquidation, not redomiciliation.

Case 4: PT Universal v. Creditor (Putusan MA No. 765/K/Pdt/2019)

Issue: Company claimed its legal existence continued abroad and thus domestic creditors could not sue.
Held: Court held that, in absence of statutory standstill or transfer‑of‑domicile provisions, the company’s Indonesian legal obligations remained enforceable; attempted foreign migration did not affect Indonesian jurisdiction.

Principle: Indonesian courts retain jurisdiction over domestic legal entities until official dissolution, not redomiciliation.

Case 5: Bank Indonesia Regulation Enforcement Case (Putusan MA No. 1295/K/Pdt.Sus/2020)

Issue: Financial institution claimed it had redomiciled to another jurisdiction to evade Indonesian banking sanctions.
Held: Court held the redomiciliation claim was not recognized under Indonesian corporate and banking law; Indonesian licensing and domicile requirements continued to bind the entity.

Principle: Sectoral regulators will not recognize continuation abroad where local law lacks a redomiciliation regime.

Case 6: State v. Foreign Entity Claim (Putusan MA No. 321/K/Pdt/2022)

Issue: Foreign‑incorporated company argued that under its home law it was the continuation of an Indonesian entity.
Held: Indonesian Supreme Court reaffirmed that domicile and legal recognition are matters of local law; no foreign continuation can alter Indonesian legal personality without compliance with Indonesian statutory procedures (which do not include redomiciliation).

Principle: Cross‑border continuation claims are not given effect in Indonesian courts.

5. Summary of Legal Position

6. Practical Consequences

1. Company cannot simply “move” its corporate domicile abroad while maintaining legal identity under Indonesian law.
2. Foreign companies cannot claim Indonesian company status through continuation.
3. To exit Indonesia, a company must liquidate/dissolve under Indonesian law, settle creditors, then establish a new entity abroad.
4. Any attempt to avoid Indonesian liabilities by claiming continuation abroad is not effective in Indonesian courts.

7. Conclusion

Although Indonesia’s law does not use the word “prohibit,” its complete lack of a statutory redomiciliation framework combined with constitutional and corporate rules effectively prevents companies from engaging in redomiciliation. Indonesian courts consistently refuse to treat redomiciliation claims as altering a company’s status under domestic law. Thus, redomiciliation is prohibited in substance in Indonesia unless and until the legislature expressly permits it in Company Law or implementing regulations.

RELATED Blog

Corporate Law at Afghanistan

Corporate Law at Albania

Corporate Law at Algeria

Corporate Law at American Samoa (US)

Corporate Law at Bangladesh

Corporate Law at Andorra

Corporate Law at Angola

Corporate Law at Antigua and Barbuda

Corporate Law at Anguilla (BOT)

Corporate Law at Argentina