ABSTRAK
UU Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia (UU Fidusia) memberikanpengaturan mengenai pengalihan objek Jaminan Fidusia dalam hal JaminanFidusia telah didaftarkan, namun dalam prakteknya dapat saja terjadi kasusdimana benda jaminan yang telah diperjanjikan untuk dibebankan denganJaminan Fidusia dialihkan oleh debitur sebelum dilakukan pendaftaran JaminanFidusia. Penelitian ini membahas apakah debitur dapat mengalihkan bendajaminan sebelum dilakukan pendaftaran Jaminan Fidusia dan bagaimana pendapatMahkamah Agung atas perbuatan debitur yang mengalihkan benda jaminansebelum dilakukan pendaftaran Jaminan Fidusia. Putusan Mahkamah AgungNomor 213 K/Pid.Sus/2010 yang menjadi studi kasus dalam penelitian inimenyatakan debitur bersalah melakukan tindak pidana melanggar UU Fidusia,meskipun Jaminan Fidusia belum didaftarkan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitianhukum normatif yang didasarkan pada data sekunder dan bersifat yuridisnormatif. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa pendaftaran Jaminan Fidusia harusdilakukan dengan segera untuk menghindari hal-hal yang merugikan krediturdengan tidak didaftarkannya Jaminan Fidusia, serta Mahkamah Agung seharusnyamemberikan pertimbangan hukum yang sesuai dengan peraturan perundangundanganyang berlaku dalam memutuskan permasalahan yang dibahas dalampenelitian ini.

---

ABSTRACT
Law Number 42 of 1999 regarding Fiduciary Security (Fiduciary Security Law)governs the transfer of an object of Fiduciary Security for registered FiduciarySecurity. However, in practice, it may happen that guaranteed goods which havebeen agreed to be secured by a Fiduciary Security is transferred by a debtor beforea registration of Fiduciary Security is conducted. This research discusses whetheror not a debtor could transfer the guaranteed goods before the registration ofFiduciary Security is conducted or and how is the opinion of the Supreme Courtregarding the conduct of the debtor who transfers the guaranteed goods before theregistration of Fiduciary Security is conducted. The Supreme Court DecisionNo.213 K/Pid.Sus/2010 which serves as the case study of this research stated thatthe debtor is guilty for his criminal conduct on violating the Fiduciary SecurityLaw, although the Fiduciary Security has not been registered. This research is anormative legal research based on secondary data and has juridical normativecharacteristic. The result of research suggests that the registration of FiduciarySecurity must be conducted promptly to avoid matters that causes loss to acreditor whose not registering its Fiduciary Security and that the Supreme Courtshould have given proper legal considerations which are consistent with theprevailing laws and regulations in deciding the case which is discussed in thisresearch.