{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1785994,
        "msgid": "sharia-p2p-when-figures-look-alike-their-essence-is-not-necessarily-the-same-1780635134",
        "date": "2026-06-05 11:12:30",
        "title": "Sharia P2P: When Figures Look Alike, Their Essence Is Not Necessarily the Same",
        "author": "",
        "source": "CNBC",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Finance",
        "summary": "An opinion piece argues that competition assessments in Indonesia's peer-to-peer lending industry must look beyond similar interest rates. It contends that Sharia-compliant P2P models, built on distinct legal contracts such as wakalah and mudharabah, are fundamentally different from conventional structures and should not be lumped together under a single economic benefit category. The article warns that equating fees, margins, and profit-sharing merely because they appear as percentages risks a categorical error with significant legal and regulatory consequences.",
        "content": "<p>The matter of business competition in the peer-to-peer lending\nindustry should not stop at a question that is too superficial: whether\nor not there are similarities in market figures. What should be\nquestioned more is this: whether the legal object being assessed was\nproperly understood from the outset, or was it simply oversimplified so\nthat structurally different business models are treated as if they are\nthe same. In two previous articles on CNBC Indonesia, attention was\ndirected at the KPPU\u2019s ruling on the P2P industry and the potential\ndisharmony between the OJK\u2019s economic benefit limits and the reading of\nArticle 5 of Law 5\/1999. This article goes one step further: its focus\nis no longer on the case and policy coordination, but on the accuracy of\nhow to categorise the legal object being assessed, especially when\nSharia business models are treated as identical to conventional ones. At\nthis point, Sharia P2P becomes both interesting and prone to\nmisunderstanding. It is often positioned as if it is no more than\nconventional P2P using different terminology. As if, when the word\n\u2018interest\u2019 is replaced with \u2018margin\u2019, \u2018ujrah\u2019, or \u2018profit sharing\u2019, the\nsubstance is automatically the same. This way of reading appears\npractical, but in a legal context, it can leave behind conceptual\nproblems that are not simple. In the principles of fiqh, there is one\nhighly relevant maxim: al-hukmu \u2018ala asy-syai\u2019 far\u2019un \u2018an tashawwurihi.\nThis means the legal ruling on something depends on the accuracy of\nunderstanding what is being assessed. If the object has not been\nunderstood precisely, then the legal assessment born from it also risks\nnot being entirely on target. Sharia P2P needs to be read starting from\nits fundamental construction. The OJK defines LPBBTI as a service that\nbrings together fund providers and fund recipients directly through an\nelectronic system, both conventionally and based on Sharia principles.\nThe mechanism is also clear: funds from providers enter via a virtual\naccount or payment gateway into the organiser\u2019s escrow account, then are\nforwarded to the recipient; upon repayment, the flow moves in the\nopposite direction from the recipient to the escrow account, then back\nto the provider. From this flow, one important thing is visible: the\nplatform is not the party lending its own money. It is the system\norganiser, process manager, and transaction facilitator. Therefore, its\nlegal relations are never singular. There is the relationship between\nthe investor and the platform, the relationship between the funds and\nthe recipient\u2019s project or needs, and the economic benefits arising from\neach of these relationship nodes. This is where categorisation becomes\nimportant. In Sharia P2P, the investor-platform relationship is commonly\nframed through wakalah or wakalah bi al-ujrah; the investor grants\nauthority, the platform performs selection, administration, processing,\nand management functions, then obtains ujrah or a service fee.\nMeanwhile, the economic relationship underpinning the funding to the\nrecipient can take the form of mudharabah, musyarakah, or al-bai\u2019\nmurabahah, depending on the business model and the contract used.\nObserving this, it appears that not every percentage figure in Sharia\nP2P can be equated with interest. The platform fee is a reward paid to\nthe organiser for the service of managing and facilitating funding. In a\nSharia scheme, a fee tied through contracts such as wakalah bi al-ujrah\nis known as ujrah, which is a service reward recognised in fiqh\nmuamalah. Margin is the profit in transactions based on a specific\nsale-and-purchase or financing arrangement. As for profit sharing in\nmudharabah or musyarakah, it is a nisbah on business results, not a\nprice on money per se. This is not a debate merely about terminology. In\ncontract law theory, the name of a performance determines from where the\nright is born, how risk is shared, and to what extent the taking of\nbenefit can be justified. In fiqh muamalah, this dividing line is even\nmore explicit: an addition in qardh moves within an area highly\nsensitive to the prohibition of riba, whereas margin in\nsale-and-purchase, ujrah in services, and nisbah in partnerships are\njustified because each is born from a different and clear legal causa.\nThe problem begins to become more complex when all these elements are\nbundled by the regulator into one umbrella term: \u2018economic benefits\u2019.\nSEOJK 19\/2023 and SEOJK 19\/2025 include interest, margin, profit\nsharing, administrative fees, commission fees, platform fees, ujrah, and\nvarious other fees as part of the total economic benefit that must be\ncalculated overall. From a consumer protection standpoint, this approach\nis understandable, because the regulator needs to capture the total\nburden borne by the fund recipient, whatever the legal label of each\ncomponent. However, at this point, caution is still necessary. The\ncategory of \u2018economic benefits\u2019 may be adequate for reading the total\nburden from a consumer protection angle, but it is not necessarily\nalways appropriate to be treated as a single category to assess all its\nlegal consequences. When interest, margin, fees, ujrah, and profit\nsharing are treated as identical just because they all appear in the\nform of a percentage figure, there is a risk of a categorical leap that\ncan blur the difference in essence between each of these elements. Yet\nin Sharia P2P, especially those based on mudharabah or musyarakah, the\ndetermination of returns is not born from a mass tariff logic. It is\nborn from a feasibility analysis of the project, sector, cash flow,\nbusiness prospects, and risk profile being financed. The OJK itself\nrequires organisers to provide a risk analysis, carry out verification,\nperform scoring, and assess the feasibility of fund recipients; even the\nfeasibility assessment function cannot be outsourced. The consequence is\nsimple but important: if the project being funded differs, the risk\nprofile will also differ, and therefore the final percentage will also\nbe different.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/sharia-p2p-when-figures-look-alike-their-essence-is-not-necessarily-the-same-1780635134",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}