Objective: This paper aims to analyze (1) simply proving the elements for bankruptcy under Article 2(1) jo. 8(4) Law No. 37 of 2004 (“Bankruptcy Law”), and (2) its effectiveness in comparison to bankruptcy in the US. This paper assesses also distinctive judgement between the bankruptcy system of Indonesia and the US even when relying on the same forms of evidence. Legal experts and advocates recognize Indonesia’s Simple Proof Test for bankruptcy as ineffective and ‘too simple’ where Courts turn a blind eye to rule out matters requiring a thorough legal and factual assessment, hence the current Bankruptcy Bill basing future revisions on United States (“US”) practices. However, the simple proof test remains. Methods: This research is a normative legal research with applying the statutory and comparatives approach to analyze the research questions concerned with descriptive qualitative. Conclusions: The result of this research found that applying the same standards in an entirely different regime would not reap the benefits intended. Therefore, a thorough assessment should replace the simple proof test entirely.