This study dissects the compliance pain points facing Chinese fintech firms in Indonesia and offers actionable guidance for overseas expansion. Design/Methodology: Using a three-step framework—regulatory mapping, regional comparison (China–Singapore–Malaysia), and corporate case analysis (Akulaku, DANA, AdaKami, Kredivo; RupiahPlus)—the paper evaluates barriers and countermeasures. Findings: Indonesia’s regime has tightened and diversified: the 2022 Personal Data Protection Law (PDP Law) introduces extraterritoriality, data minimization, 72-hour breach notice, and “equivalent protection” for cross-border transfers, raising data-compliance costs; the 2023 P2SK Law moves crypto oversight from Bappebti to OJK from 2025; POJK No. 40/2024 eases foreign equity caps while increasing capital/disclosure requirements and banning aggressive collections. A dual-track BI–OJK structure, Kominfo oversight, and local autonomy create fragmented standards and heavier reporting/enforcement burdens. Conclusion: China’s internet-finance model is not directly transferrable to Indonesia. Practical implications: Firms should build a dual adaptation framework—institutionally, dynamic regulatory mapping and localized data-governance plans; culturally, product and process designs compatible with religious-legal norms—plus staged market-entry and compliance operating models.
Tengfei et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: