Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Pada pelaksanaan pengadaan barang dan jasa terdapat jaminan pelaksana yang diperlukan agar pelaksana pekerjaan melaksanakan perjanjian sesuai dengan ketentuan yang telah disepakati. Apabila pada suatu waktu pelaksana pengadaan melakukan wanprestasi, maka penjamin akan menanggung ganti rugi atas wanprestasi yang dilakukan principal. Salah satu produk penjaminan yaitu kontra garansi bank. Kontra garansi bank merupakan celah hukum yang dapat digunakan terutama oleh pelaksana pengadaan yang tidak mempunyai modal besar. Di sisi lain, kreditur dapat dirugikan karena ketidakbonafidnya pelaksana pekerjaan dan karena melibatkan banyak pihak, maka pencairan kontra garansi juga memakan waktu lama daripada pencairan bank garansi umumnya.

---

In Procurement process, there?s need a Performance Bond to make principal implement the agreement accordance with the provision agreed. If once upon a time principal is default, then guarantor will pay damages for the breach of contract was committed by the principal. One of the products is counter bank guarantee. Counter bank guarantee is a loophole which used by principal who don?t have large capital. In otherwise, creditor can be harmed because of principal?s lack of bona fide and it's also involve many parties can take a longer time when processing of claim that common bank guarantee."

"[Dalam menjalankan bisnis bank selaku kreditur atau pihak pemberi pinjaman dalam pemberian fasilitas kredit kepada debitur terdapat risiko yang melekat, dan bank harus dapat memperhitungkan risiko yang dapat timbul terkait dengan aktivitas pemberian kredit tersebut, sehingga dapat meminimalkan potensi risiko yang dapat terjadi. Namun persetujuan bank atas pemberian fasilitas kredit ternyata dikemudianhari terjadi pelanggaran dan/atau pelampauan Batas Maksimum Pemberian Kredit (BMPK) sedangkan Perjanjian Kredit telah ditandatangani dan sah menurut hukum kemudian bank menghentikan pencairan fasilitas kredit maka menimbulkan hak bagi debitur untuk mengajukan gugatan wanprestasi. Penelitian hukum ini bertujuan untukmengetahui dan memahami mengenai akibat hukum bagi bank apabila telah melakukan pelanggaran dan/atau pelampauan Batas Maksimum Pemberian Kredit (BMPK) serta Untuk mengetahui dasar gugatan wanprestasi oleh debitur terhadap bank serta perlindungan hukum bagi bank atas adanya gugatan wanprestasi oleh debitur atas perjanjian kredit yang telah ditanda tangani antara bank dengan debituratas pelanggaran dan/atau pelampauan batas maksimum pemberian kredit. Penulisan tesis ini dikaji dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif atau yuridis normatif yaitu menggunakan teknik pengumpulan data berupa penelitian kepustakaandengan cara mempelajari berbagai literatur yang berhubungan dengan objek penelitian atas bahan-bahan hukum baik bahan menggunakan bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder, maupun bahan hukum tersier. Hasil yang diperoleh dari penelitian yang telah dilakukan, bahwa Terhadap pelanggaran dan/atau pelampauan atas ketentuan BMPK dapat dikenakan sanksi mulai dari sanksi administrasi dantidak menutup kemungkinan dapat dikenakan sanksi pidana kepada Dewan Komisaris, Direksi, pegawai Bank, pemegang saham maupun pihak terafiliasi lainnya, mencerminkan adanya permasalahan tata kelola bank (GCG), hingga menyebabkan terjadinya penurunan tingkat kesehatan serta secara hukum bank dapat dilindungi dari gugatan wanprestasi debitur akibat terjadinya pelanggaran dan/ataupelampauan batas maksimum pemberian kredit demi kepentingan bank.;In running a business bank as creditor or lender in the provision of credit facilities to borrowers there are inherent risks, and the bank must be able to take into account the risks that may arise relating to the credit granting activities, so as to minimize the potential risks that can occur. However, the approval of the bank credit facilities inthe future turned out to be a violation and / or overrun Legal Lending Limit (LLL) while the Credit Agreement has been signed and lawful then stop the disbursement of bank credit facilities will cause a debtor the right to file a lawsuit for breach of contract. Legal research is aimed to know and understand the legal consequences for the bank when it is a foul and / or overrun Legal Lending Limit (LLL) as well as to know the basis of the claim of default by the debtor to the bank as well as legalprotection for banks on the lawsuit of default by the debtor on the credit agreement has been signed between the bank and the debtor for breach and / or overrun legal lending limit.This thesis was assessed using normative legal research or juridical normative that uses data collection techniques in the form of research literature bystudying the literature relating to the object of research on legal materials both materials using primary legal materials, secondary law, and legal materials tertiary. The results of the research that has been done, that against violations and / or overrun on the legal lending limit may be subject to sanctions ranging from administrative sanctions and did not rule may be subject to criminal sanctions to the Board ofCommissioners, Board of Directors, Bank employees, shareholders and other affiliated parties, reflecting the bank's governance issues (GCG), to cause a decrease in the level of health as well as legally the bank can be protected from a lawsuit the debtor defaults due to the violation and / or exceeding the maximum limit in the interests of bank lending., In running a business bank as creditor or lender in the provision of credit facilities toborrowers there are inherent risks, and the bank must be able to take into account therisks that may arise relating to the credit granting activities, so as to minimize thepotential risks that can occur. However, the approval of the bank credit facilities inthe future turned out to be a violation and / or overrun Legal Lending Limit (LLL)while the Credit Agreement has been signed and lawful then stop the disbursement ofbank credit facilities will cause a debtor the right to file a lawsuit for breach ofcontract. Legal research is aimed to know and understand the legal consequences forthe bank when it is a foul and / or overrun Legal Lending Limit (LLL) as well as toknow the basis of the claim of default by the debtor to the bank as well as legalprotection for banks on the lawsuit of default by the debtor on the credit agreementhas been signed between the bank and the debtor for breach and / or overrun legallending limit.This thesis was assessed using normative legal research or juridicalnormative that uses data collection techniques in the form of research literature bystudying the literature relating to the object of research on legal materials bothmaterials using primary legal materials, secondary law, and legal materials tertiary.The results of the research that has been done, that against violations and / or overrunon the legal lending limit may be subject to sanctions ranging from administrativesanctions and did not rule may be subject to criminal sanctions to the Board ofCommissioners, Board of Directors, Bank employees, shareholders and otheraffiliated parties, reflecting the bank's governance issues (GCG), to cause a decreasein the level of health as well as legally the bank can be protected from a lawsuit thedebtor defaults due to the violation and / or exceeding the maximum limit in theinterests of bank lending.]"

"Dalam sektor pelayaran yang padat modal, kapal laut sering dijadikan objek jaminan melalui hipotek kapal yang memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi kreditur. Namun, muncul permasalahan ketika kreditur dianggap lalai, seperti dalam pengawasan pembangunan kapal, sebagaimana tercermin dalam Putusan No. 120/Pdt.G/2015/PN Bpp dan Putusan No. 34/PDT/2017/PT.SMR. Kasus ini melibatkan perjanjian pembangunan kapal, perjanjian kredit investasi yang diikat dengan Grosse Akta Hipotek Kapal, serta perjanjian sewa-menyewa. Penggugat mengklaim bahwa kelalaian Kreditur dalam pengawasan berdampak pada kerusakan mesin kapal. Namun, analisis hukum menunjukkan kewajiban Kreditur hanya terbatas pada pengawasan alur dana kredit investasi sebagaimana diatur dalam perjanjian, dan telah dipenuhi secara sah. Bank selaku Tergugat II juga tidak memiliki kapasitas untuk mengawasi pembangunan kapal secara langsung. Maka dari itu, pengadilan menilai gugatan terhadap Kreditur tidak berdasar. Penelitian ini menegaskan bahwa kendala debitur dalam melunasi utang tidak menghapus kewajibannya. Kreditur tetap berhak mengeksekusi jaminan dan meminta pertanggungjawaban Debitur berdasarkan kekuatan eksekutorial Grosse Akta Hipotek Kapal. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif berbasis sosio-legal untuk menganalisis perlindungan hukum bagi Kreditur dalam kasus wanprestasi Debitur, untuk menghilangkan kebingungan dalam praktik hukum, serta rekomendasikan peningkatan perlindungan hukum, guna memastikan hak kreditur tetap terlindungi dalam perjanjian kredit investasi.

---

In the capital-intensive shipping sector, ships are frequently used as collateral through ship mortgages, offering creditors legal protection. Issues arise when creditors are accused of negligence, such as in supervising ship construction, as highlighted in Decisions No. 120/Pdt.G/2015/PN Bpp and No. 34/PDT/2017/PT.SMR. The case involved a shipbuilding agreement, an investment credit agreement secured by a Grosse Deed of Ship Mortgage, and a lease agreement. The plaintiff alleged that the creditor's lack of supervision caused engine damage. However, legal analysis revealed that the creditor's obligation was limited to overseeing the flow of investment credit funds, as outlined in the agreement, and this had been duly fulfilled. Additionally, the bank, as Defendant II, lacked the capacity to directly supervise ship construction. Consequently, the court deemed the plaintiff's claim against the creditor unfounded. This study underscores that a debtor's difficulties in repaying debts do not absolve their obligations. Creditors retain the right to execute collateral and hold debtors accountable under the Grosse Deed of Ship Mortgage's executorial power. Using a socio-legal normative method, this research aims to clarify creditor responsibilities and proposes measures to strengthen legal protection in investment credit agreements. "

"Bank Garansi ini merupakan salah satu produk pemerintah dalam menumbuhkan iklim sehat pada dunia perbankan. Produk ini mendukung dalam meningkatkan penyaluran dana kepada masyarakat. Resiko Bank Garansi muncul jika nasabah melakukan perbuatan wanprestasi atau tidak memenuhi segala kewajiban kepada penerima jaminan. Hingga kini masih terdapat pencairan Bank Garansi tidak tepat sasaran sesuai dengan resiko yang terkandung didalamnya. Pencairan Bank Garansi dilakukan saat terpenuhinya unsur wanprestasi. Oleh karena itu, tesis ini akan membahas mengenai dua hal, yaitu kelayakan pencairan Bank Garansi dalam hal telah dilaksanakannya prestasi oleh Prinsipal dan Akibat hukum yang terjadi ada Prinsipal yang telah melakukan prestasi dengan adanya pencairan Bank Garansi tersebut dengan contoh pada kasus Proyek Pembangunan 12 Unit Rumah Bank Indonesia di Jalan Panglima Polim I dan VI, Kebayoran Baru - Jakarta Selatan. Dalam kasus ini terdapat empat pihak yaitu PT Bank DKI sebagai penerbit Bank Garansi atau jaminan, Bank Indonesia selaku Obligee atau Pemilik Proyek, PT Elti Prima Raya selaku Kontraktor atau Prinsipal yang bertugas dalam pelaksanaan proyek dan PT Wisma Kosgoro selaku subkontraktor. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil dari penelitian atas kasus Proyek Pembangunan 12 Unit Rumah Bank Indonesia ini menyatakan bahwa Bank Garansi layak dicairkan dalam hal telah dilaksanakannya prestasi oleh Prinsipal, hal ini terbukti Pada saat Bank Garansi berpegang pada prinsip Unconditional atau First Demand. Dengan prinsip ini berarti bank akan segera mencairkan jaminan jika diminta oleh Obligee (tanpa harus membuktikan kegagalan/wanprestasi/default Principal dan/atau kerugian yang diderita Obligee). Akibat Hukum yang terjadi pada Prinsipal yang telah melakukan prestasi dengan adanya Pencairan Bank Garansi tersebut adalah Kontraktor dinyatakan Lalai, Kontraktor akan menderita kerugian sebesar nilai pencairan Bank Garansi, Kontraktor menderita kerugian sebesar yang telah dilakukan prestasi, Kontraktor menderita kerugian berupa keuntungan yang seharusnya didapat dari pelaksanaan prestasi, Kontraktor masuk dalam daftar hitam perusahaan dan tidak dapat mengikuti proyek pengadaan barang/jasa sesuai PerPres No. 54 Tahun 2010 tentang Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintahan, Kontraktor menderita kerugian berupa ongkos, kerugian, bunga dan biaya perkara pengadilan.

---

Bank Guarantee is one of the products of government in fostering a healthy climate in the banking world. This product is in support of the improvements in the distribution of funds to the public. Risks of Bank Guarantee arise should a customer defaults or does not meet all the obligations to the insured. There is, as yet, an ineffective disubrsement of Bank Guarantee in accordance with the risk entailed therein. Disbursement of Bank Guarantee is made should there be elements of default. Therefore, this thesis will discuss about two things, namely the feasibility of disbursement of Bank Guarantee in terms of performance having been implemented by the Principal and the legal consequences arising after Principals having discharged performance with the disbursement of Bank Guarantee One of the cases that will be highlighted is the case of 12 housing units of Bank Indonesia on Jalan Panglima Polim I and VI, Kebayoran Baru - Jakarta Selatan. In this case, there were four parties, namely PT Bank DKI as the issuer of Bank Guarantee or warranty, Bank Indonesia as the obligee or the Project Owner, PT Elti Prima Karya as the Contractor or the Principal in charge of the implementation of the project and PT Wisma Kosgoro as the subcontractor. Normative juridical research was in use in this research.

The result of the research on the Construction Project of 12 Housing Units of Bank Indonesia shows that the bank guarantee is worth disbursing in terms of the performance having been implemented by the Principal. It is obvious that Bank Guarantee adheres to the principle of unconditional or first demand. With this principle, it means that the bank will immediately disburse the guarantee if requested by the obligee (without having to prove the failure / default / default Principal and / or the loss suffered by the obligee). The legal consequences that occur on the Principal having implemented performance with the disbursement of Bank Guarantee are that the Contractor is declared to be negligent, the Contractor suffers a loss of as much as the value of the disbursement of Bank Guarantee, the Contractor suffers a loss in terms of the profits that should have been obtained from the implementation of the performance, the Contractor's company is blacklisted and incapable of participating in the project procurement of goods / services in accordance with the Presidential Decree No. 54 of 2010 on Procurement of Goods / Services for Government, the Contractor suffers a loss in the form of fees, interest and litigation costs."

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai keabsahan sertifikat jaminan fidusia yang merupakan perlindungan hukum bagi penerima fidusia atas perjanjian pembiayaan yang disepakati dengan pemberi fidusia. Dalam hal pemberi fidusia melakukan wanprestasi maka penerima fidusia dapat melakukan eksekusi terhadap objek jaminan fidusia. Adanya titel eksekutorial pada jaminan fidusia menjadi perlindungan pada penerima fidusia dimanapun objek jaminan fidusia itu berada. Pada pendaftaran objek jaminan fidusia para pihak harus menggunakan objek jaminan milik pemberi fidusia. Hal itu telah ditentukan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Pada putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3584 K/PDT/2018 objek jaminan tidak atas nama pemberi fidusia sehingga berakibat tidak sahnya sertifikat jaminan fidusia dan pemberi fidusia yang cidera janji merugikan penerima fidusia karena tidak dapatnya objek jaminan tersebut dieksekusi oleh penerima fidusia. Permasalahan yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah keabsahan sertifikat jaminan fidusia yang objek jaminan tidak atas nama pemberi fidusia dan tanggung jawab debitur atas cidera janji dalam perjanjian pembiayaan konsumen. Penelitian permasalahan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif yaitu analisis berdasarkan teori dan peraturan perundang-undangan tentang jaminan fidusia dan wanprestasi. Analisis data yang dilakukan adalah diagnostik berdasarkan ketentuan mengenai jaminan fidusia, perjanjian pembiayaan konsumen dan wanprestasi. Dalam hal perjanjian pembiayaan, sertifikat jaminan fidusia sah jika objek jaminan merupakan milik pemberi fidusia agar memberi perlindungan kepada para pihak dan untuk mencegah terjadinya permasalahan seharusnya objek jaminan langsung dibaliknamakan kepemilikannya. Kerugian yang dialami kreditur akibat cidera janji harus dipertanggungjawabkan oleh debitur berdasarkan perjanjian pokok yang disepakati para pihak. Oleh karena itu kreditur harus meminta ganti rugi kepada debitur.

---

This research discusses the validity of the fiduciary guarantee certificate which is a legal protection for the fiduciary recipient of the agreed financing agreement with the fiduciary. In the event that the fiduciary performs default, the fiduciary recipient can execute the fiduciary security object. The existence of the executorial title on the fiduciary guarantee protects the fiduciary recipient wherever the object of the fiduciary guarantee is. In registering the object of fiduciary security, the parties must use the object of the guarantee belonging to the fiduciary. This has been stipulated in Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Security. In the decision of the Supreme Court Number 3584 K / PDT / 2018, the object of guarantee is not in the name of the fiduciary, which results in invalidation of the fiduciary certificate and the fiduciary who fails to promise to harm the fiduciary recipient because the fiduciary recipient cannot execute the guarantee object. The problems discussed in this study are the validity of the fiduciary guarantee certificate, which the object of guarantee is not in the name of the fiduciary and the debtor's responsibility for default in the consumer financing agreement. Research on the problem uses the normative juridical research method, namely analysis based on theory and legislation on fiduciary and default guarantees. The data analysis performed was a diagnostic based on the provisions regarding fiduciary security, consumer financing agreements and defaults. In the case of a financing agreement, the fiduciary guarantee certificate is valid if the collateral object is the property of the fiduciary in order to provide protection to the parties and to prevent problems from occurring, the object of guarantee should be immediately reversed in the name of its ownership. Losses suffered by the creditor due to default must be accounted for by the debtor based on the main agreement agreed by the parties. Therefore, the creditor must ask for compensation from the debtor."

"Sejalan dengan meningkatnya volume dan jenis kegiatan perekonomian di Indonesia, pembiayaan secara bersama oleh beberapa bank dalam bentuk pinjaman sindikasi merupakan salah satu langkah yang sangat baik untuk mengatasi kebutuhan yang terus meningkat, karena masing-masing bank dapat terhindar dari pelanggaran ketentuan mengenai Batas Maksimum Pemberian Kredit (BMPK). Namun, pada praktiknya, terdapat wanprestasi terhadap perjanjian kredit sindikasi oleh kreditur, karena kedudukan bank dan nasabah yang sebenarnya tidak seimbang. Analisis skripsi berintikan bahwa wanprestasi oleh kreditur tersebut dapat mengakibatkan perjanjian kredit sindikasi batal dan para kreditur harus membayar ganti rugi sesuai dengan porsi keikutsertaannya.

---

In accordance with the increasing volume and types of economic activities in Indonesia, joint funding by several banks in the form of syndicated loans is a good step to address the growing needs this is because each bank could avoid infringement Lending Limit (BMPK). However, in practice, there are defaults found on the agreements on the involvement of the syndicated loan by the creditors, because the position of the Bank and Clients that are not balanced. This thesis analysis is cored on that the default with the lender may result in canceled syndicated credit agreement and the creditor must pay compensation according to their participation."

"[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisa apakah penanggung utang dapat dimohonkan pailit oleh kreditur dengan berdasarkan pada utang-utang debitur utama pada saat terjadi wanprestasi serta prosedur pengajuanpermohonan pailit apabila penanggung utang dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditur berdasarkan pada utang debitur utama yang wanprestasi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitan hukum yuridis normatif, dengan cara menganalisa norma-norma hukum yang berlaku dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dibidang kepailitan. Bahwa penanggung utang dapat diajukan pailit oleh kreditur dengan didasarkan pada sisa utang yang belum dibayarkan oleh debitur utama, dan pengajuan pailit tersebut dilakukan dengan cara terlebih dahulu mempailitkandebitur utama. sisa utang yang belum terbayarkan setelah dilakukan pemberesan utang debitur utama merupakan utang yang masih harus ditanggung dan menjadi kewajiban bagi penanggung untuk melunasinya. Bahwa setelah dilakukan penelitian lebih lanjut dapat disimpulkan bahwa penanggung utang dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditur dengan didasarkan pada sisa utang debitur utama berdasarkan perjanjian pokok. Hal mana menunjukkan bahwa kewajiban pembayaran sisa utang tersebut berpindah pada penanggung dengan segala akibat hukumnya. Permohonan pailit terhadap penanggung.

---

The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor. The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor.;The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor., The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able

to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default

debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The

legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by

analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector.

The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on

outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are

filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor.

After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to

be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor.

Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all

law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil

code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the

procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the

specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor.]"

"Sebagai salah satu bentuk jaminan kredit, jaminan perorangan (personal guarantee) merupakan janji atau kesanggupan pihak ketiga untuk memenuhi kewajiban debitur, apabila debitur tidak dapat melaksanakan kewajibannya dikemudian hari. Tulisan ini membahas pertanggungjawaban pihak ketiga yang memberikan jaminan perorangan (personal guarantee) terhadap Bank selaku kreditur dalam hal debitur wanprestasi dalam memenuhi kewajibannya. Juga dibahas mengenai upaya Bank dalam rangka penyelamatan dan penyelesaian kredit macet yang disertai dengan jaminan perorangan (personal guarantee). Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis-normatif dengan studi kepustakaan yang dilengkapi dengan wawancara. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pertanggungjawaban pihak ketiga yang memberikan jaminan perorangan (personal guarantee) menjadi identik dengan seorang debitur terhadap Bank dalam hal debitur utama wanprestasi dalam memenuhi kewajibannya dan barang-barang debitur telah disita dan dijual namun tidak cukup untuk membayar utangnya. Selain itu, tiap-tiap penanggung juga dapat langsung ditagih atas utang debitur, tanpa adanya keharusan bagi kreditur untuk mengambil pelunasan terlebih dahulu dari debitur utama apabila si penanggung telah melepaskan hak istimewanya. Pada praktiknya, jaminan perorangan (personal guarantee) di Indonesia hanyalah bersifat sebagai jaminan tambahan yang lebih mengacu pada kewajiban moral saja sehingga seringkali penanggung tidak memiliki itikad baik dalam menyelesaikan utang debitur utama. Hal ini menyebabkan pelaksanaan jaminan perorangan (personal guarantee) di lapangan masih sangat tidak menentu. Oleh karena itu, bank sudah sepatutnya mengetahui bentuk perlindungan hukum yang dapat dilakukan untuk mencegah kerugian jika terjadi kredit bermasalah dengan jaminan perorangan (personal guarantee).

---

As a form of credit guarantee, personal guarantee is a promise or the ability of a third party to fulfil the debtor's obligations, if the debtor is unable to carry out his obligations in the future. This paper discusses about the liability of a third party providing a personal guarantee to the Bank in the event that the debtor didn’t carry out its obligations. It also discusses what the Bank can do in the context of salvaging and settling bad loans, accompanied by a personal guarantee. This research uses juridicial-normative method, with literature study accompanied by interviews. The results show that the liability of a third party who provides a personal guarantee is identical to that of a debtor in the event that the main debtor failed to fulfil its obligations and the debtor's goods have been confiscated and sold but are not sufficient to pay the debt. In addition, each guarantor can also be directly billed for the debtor's debt, without any obligation for the creditor to take full payment from the main debtor if the guarantor has given up the privileges. In practice, personal guarantees in Indonesia are only viewed as a moral obligation so that often the personal guarantor doesn’t have good faith in settling the debt of the main debtor. As a result, the implementation of personal guarantees is still very uncertain. Therefore, banks should be aware of the legal protection that can be done to prevent losses in the event of a non-performing loan with a personal guarantee."

"ABSTRAKFidusia merupakan sebuah sistem penjaminan berdasarkan kepercayaan karena benda yang dijaminkan berada di tangan Debitur dan dapat digunakan sebaik-baiknya oleh Debitur. Bank perlu adanya kepastian dalam hal pengembalian dana tersebut yaitu berupa jaminan. Fidusia merupakan sebuah sistem penjaminan berdasarkan kepercayaan karena benda yang dijaminkan berada di tangan Debitur dan dapat digunakan sebaik-baiknya oleh Debitur. Bank perlu adanya kepastian dalam hal pengembalian dana tersebut yaitu berupa jaminan. Dalam hal pemberian kepastian hukum terhadap objek jaminan maka dalam Pasal 11 Undang Undang Jaminan Fidusia, mengharuskan dilakukannya pendaftaran atas objek jaminan tersebut. Namun hal ini juga dapat memberikan celah dimana Debitur dapat melakukan fidusia ulang terhadap benda yang telah dijaminan secara fidusia, karena secara fisik tidak ada bukti yang jelas di benda tersebut yang menyatakan bahwa benda ini sedang dalam jaminan fidusia. Hal inilah yang akan dikupas dalam bentuk sebuah penulisan tesis yang berjudul ?Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Kreditur Terhadap Debitur Yang Melakukan Fidusia Ganda? dengan tujuan untuk mengetahui kelemahan dan proses pendaftaran fidusia juga perlindungan hukum bagi kreditur yang mendapat fidusia ganda. Metode pendekatan yang dipergunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode yuridis empiris dan tipe penelitian yuridis-normatif, selain mengkaji hukum secara teoritik dan normatif. Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar adanya database mengenai subjek hukum yang baik perorangan maupun badan hukum yang melakukan jaminan fidusia berikut keterangan mengenai benda yang telah dijaminkan dan dapat diakses oleh Pihak Ketiga yang berkepentingan.

---

ABSTRACT

Fiduciary is an assurance systems based on trust as collateral objects in the hands of the Borrower and may be used as well as possible by the Debtor. Banks need certainty in terms of the refund in the form of guarantees. Fiduciary is an assurance systems based on trust as collateral objects in the hands of the Borrower and may be used as well as possible by the Debtor. Banks need certainty in terms of the refund in the form of guarantees. In terms of providing legal certainty to the object of Article 11 guarantees the Undang Undang Jaminan Fidusia, required the registration of objects assurance tersebut. But it can also provide a gap where the debtor can carry out fiduciary re the objects have a fiduciary guarantee you, because physically there is no evidence that clearly stating that these object were in a fiduciary. This is what will be discussed in the form of a thesis entitled ?Creditor Law Protection Against The Debtor Double Fiduciary Performing? with the aim to identify the weaknesses and fiduciary registration process also legal protection for creditors who gets double fiduciary. Method of approach used in this study is an empirical method and type of juridical-normative juridical research, in addition to reviewing the theoretical and normative law. The results of the study suggest that the presence of a database on the subject of law, both individuals and legal entities that perform the following description of the fiduciary who has pledged object and can be accessed by interested third parties."

"Perlindungan yang diberikan oleh hukum bagi Kreditur atau perbuatan debitur yang dapat merugikan kreditur adalah melalui lembaga actio pauliana. Actio Pauliana dilakukan oleh kreditur untuk melindungi budel pailit dari perbuatan debitur yang tidak diwajibkan untuk dilakukannya atau dilarang sebelum putusan pailit diucapkan. Mengingat pentingnya penerapan actio pauliana sebagai instrument perlindungan bagi para kreditur maka, berdasarkan latar belakang penelitian ini menghasilkan tiga (3) permasalahan yang dibahas, yakni: 1) Bagaimanakah sistem pembuktian terhadap suatu tindakan debitur dapat dinyatakan memenuhi syarat-syarat berlakunya actio pauliana 2). Bagaiamana perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditur maupun pihak ketiga terkait lembaga actio pauliana? 3). Apa yang menjadi kelemahan-kelemahan actio pauliana dalam memberikan perlindungan hukum kepada kreditur?Adapun metode penelitian yang digunakan di dalam penelitian ini yakni menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yang bersifat deskriptif analitis adalah penelitian hukum kepustakaan yang dilakukan dengan cara meneliti bahan-bahan hukum, asas-asas hukum serta peraturan hukum yang ada hubungannya dengan pokok bahasan. Teknik pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan cara library research dan field research.Berdasarkan penelitian hukum dapat disimpulkan sebagai berikut: (1) Sistem pembuktian dalam actio pauliana adalah sistem pembuktian terbalik dimana dalam hal ini membebankan pembuktian terhadap perbuatan hukum debitur yaitu debitur pailit apabila perbuatan hukum debitur tersebut dilakukan dalam waktu sebelum putusan pailit diucapkan. Sebaliknya, jika kurator menilai bahwa perbuatan hukum tersebut merugikan kepentingan kreditur atau harta pailit, maka yang wajib membuktikan adalah kurator dengan membuktikan bahwa perbuatan hukum tersebut tidak wajib dilakukan oleh mereka dan perbuatan hukum tersebut merugikan harta pailit. (2) Perlindungan hukum terhadap kreditur maupun pihak ketiga terkait lembaga actio pauliana yaitu kreditur mempunyai hak untuk mengajukan pembatalan kepada pengadilan terhadap perbuatan hukum yang dilakukan oleh debitur sebelum dinyatakan pailit yang mengakibatkan kerugian bagi kreditur dan bagi pihak ketiga memberikannya hak untuk tampil sebagai Kreditur konkuren untuk mendapatkan hak-haknya. (3) Kelemahan-kelemahan actio pauliana dalam memberikan perlindungan hukum kepada kreditur ketidakjelasan pengadilan mana yang berwenang memutus perkara actio pauliana, pembuktiannya yang tidak sederhana, tidak adanya tolak ukur itikad baik dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004, legal standing kurator yang lemah, dan kemungkinan pengalihan aset ke pihak lain sehingga mempersulit kurator dalam melakukan pembuktian.

---

The protection provided by law for creditors or debtor actions that can harm creditors is through the Pauliana Action Agency. Actio Pauliana is carried out by the creditor to protect the bankrupt bankrupt from the actions of the debtor that are not required to be carried out or prohibited before the bankruptcy decision is pronounced. Given the importance of implementing actio pauliana as an instrument of protection for creditors, based on the background of this study, three (3) issues were discussed, namely: 1) How can the system of proof for an act of a debtor be declared to fulfill the requirements for the validity of actio pauliana 2). How is the legal protection for creditors and third parties related to the actio pauliana institution? 3). What are Actio Pauliana's weaknesses in providing legal protection to creditors?The research method used in this research is using a normative juridical method which is descriptive analytical in that it is a legal research of literature which is carried out by examining legal materials, legal principles and legal regulations that are related to the subject matter. Data collection techniques were carried out by means of library research and field research.Based on legal research, it can be concluded as follows: (1) The evidentiary system in actio pauliana is a reversed evidentiary system which in this case imposes a burden of proof on the legal actions of the debtor, namely the bankrupt debtor if the debtor's legal actions were carried out before the bankruptcy decision was pronounced. Conversely, if the curator considers that the legal action is detrimental to the interests of creditors or bankrupt assets, then it is the curator who is obliged to prove by proving that the legal action is not obligatory to be carried out by them and the legal action is detrimental to the bankrupt assets. (2) Legal protection for creditors and third parties related to the actio pauliana institution, namely the creditor has the right to submit an cancellation to the court of legal actions carried out by the debtor before being declared bankrupt which results in losses for the creditor and for third parties gives him the right to appear as a concurrent creditor for get their rights. (3) Actio pauliana's weaknesses in providing legal protection to creditors is unclear which court has the authority to decide on the actio pauliana case, the evidence is not simple, there is no good faith benchmark in Law Number 37 of 2004, weak legal standing of curators, and the possibility of transferring assets to other parties, making it difficult for the curator to prove."