Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang kedudukan sita umum pailit terhadap sita pidana dan jalan keluar atas objek sita umum pailit yang telah dieksekusi lelang yang di kemudian hari diketahui sebagai hasil tindak pidana serta akibat hukum bagi pembeli dalam lelang harta pailit. Dalam praktiknya, terdapat tumpang tindih antara sita umum pailit dengan sita pidana. Apabila harta yang berada di dalam proses pailit dan dilakukan sita umum disita oleh penyidik, maka harta tersebut tidak dapat dilakukan pemberesan dan dibagikan kepada para krediturnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian bagi kreditur. Namun, apabila tidak dilakukan penyitaan oleh penyidik, maka penyidik akan mengalami kesulitan dalam melakukan penyidikan, penuntutan, dan pengajuan perkara ke pengadilan karena harta tersebut merupakan barang bukti. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan tipologi deskriptif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa pelaksanaan sita pidana dalam rangka kepentingan publik harus didahulukan dan dalam hal objek sita umum pailit telah dilelang namun di kemudian hari diketahui sebagai hasil dari tindak pidana, maka pembeli lelang yang beriktikad baik harus dilindungi kedudukannya.

---

This thesis discusses the legal standing of general bankruptcy confiscation against criminal confiscation and the settlement of the object of general bankruptcy confiscation that has been auctioned which in the future time is known as the proceeds of crime and the legal effects for buyers in the auction of bankrupt treasures. In practice, there is an overlap between general bankruptcy confiscation against criminal confiscation. If the property in the process of bankruptcy and general bankruptcy confiscation is re confiscated by the criminal investigator, then the property can not be settled and distributed to the creditors. But if there is no criminal confiscation, the investigator will have difficulty in conducting an investigation, prosecution, and court proceedings as the property is evidence. This research is a qualitative research with descriptive typology. The result of this research is that the execution of criminal confiscation in the framework of the public interest must take precedence and if the object of general bankruptcy confiscation has been auctioned but later known as the proceeds of crime, then the buyer with good faith must be protected."

"[Tesis ini bertujuan untuk melakukan analisa terhadap perlindungan hukum Pihak Ketiga akibat putusan pailit yang dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, dimana hal tersebut dibahas salah satunya di penjelasan Pasal 3 ayat (1) UUKPKPU tentang “hal lain-lain”. Tesis ini menggunakan metode analisa terhadap gugatan Pihak Ketiga kepada Kurator dengan berbagai dasar gugatan, yang meliputi : Pertama (1) Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Panca Wiratama Sakti Tbk (Dalam Pailit) mengenai sewa menyewa tanah. Kedua (2) Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Mitra Safir Sejahtera (Dalam Pailit), mengenai sertifikat tanah. Ketiga (3), Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Bendi Oetama Raya (Dalam Pailit), mengenai kepemilikan tanah yang telah dijaminkan Hak Tanggungan. Keempat (4), Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Sinar Central Rejeki (Dalam Pailit), mengenai sebagian tanah dan bangunan. Kelima (5), Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Surabaya Agung Industri Pulp & Kertas (Dalam Pailit), mengenai jual beli barang yang dilakukan oleh Debitor Pailit. Hasil penelitian diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang ternyata belum mampu menyelesaikan permasalahan kepailitan karena masih ada pihak yang mengajukan gugatan atas harta pailit Debitor Pailit. Hak dan kewajiban Pihak Ketiga yang diatur diluar maupun didalam UUKPKPU belum cukup melindungi segala hak-haknya, terlebih dalam kasus kepailitan karena banyaknya dampak yang terjadi setelah Debitor dinyatakan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga. Hal ini tidak cukup menyelesaikan permasalahan mengenai adanya perikatan yang dilakukan Pihak Ketiga dan Debitor Pailit sehingga diperlukannya peraturan perundang-undangan yang mendukung Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang yang mana bertujuan untuk pemberesan harta pailit Debitor Pailit;This Research purpose is to analyze legal protection for Third Party as a consequence of insolvency verdict on Statute number 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law (“UUKPKPU”), whereas it was covered on explanation of clause 3 paragraph (1) regarding “Other matters”. This research use analyzing method on several Third Party lawsuit to the Curator with variety of basis for the lawsuit, that includes : First (1) Third Party Vs PT Panca Wiratama Sakti Tbk (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land lease. Second (2) Third Party Vs PT Mitra Safir Sejahtera (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land sertificate. Third (3) Third Party Vs PT Bendi Oetama Raya (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land and building ownership that has being mortage. Fourth (4) Third Party Vs PT Sinar Central Rejeki (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding partial land and building ownership. Fifth (5), Third Party Vs PT Surabaya Agung Industri Pulp and Kertas (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding commodity selling by Bankrupt Debtor. Result of the research shows that Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law still unable to solve the problem of bankruptcy, because there are parties that still filed lawsuit against bankruptcy assets of Bankrupt Debtors. Third Parties rights and obligation that set on Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law are not sufficient enough to protect their rights, especially in the Bankruptcy case impact will be perceived after the debtor decided bankrupt by the commercial court. It is not enough solve the problems concerning of Third Party agreement with the Bankrupt Debtors and thus the need for legislation that supports Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law on settlement of bankruptcy assets Bankrupt Debtor., This Research purpose is to analyze legal protection for Third Party as a consequence of insolvency verdict on Statute number 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law (“UUKPKPU”), whereas it was covered on explanation of clause 3 paragraph (1) regarding “Other matters”. This research use analyzing method on several Third Party lawsuit to the Curator with variety of basis for the lawsuit, that includes : First (1) Third Party Vs PT Panca Wiratama Sakti Tbk (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land lease. Second (2) Third Party Vs PT Mitra Safir Sejahtera (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land sertificate. Third (3) Third Party Vs PT Bendi Oetama Raya (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land and building ownership that has being mortage. Fourth (4) Third Party Vs PT Sinar Central Rejeki (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding partial land and building ownership. Fifth (5), Third Party Vs PT Surabaya Agung Industri Pulp and Kertas (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding commodity selling by Bankrupt Debtor. Result of the research shows that Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law still unable to solve the problem of bankruptcy, because there are parties that still filed lawsuit against bankruptcy assets of Bankrupt Debtors. Third Parties rights and obligation that set on Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law are not sufficient enough to protect their rights, especially in the Bankruptcy case impact will be perceived after the debtor decided bankrupt by the commercial court. It is not enough solve the problems concerning of Third Party agreement with the Bankrupt Debtors and thus the need for legislation that supports Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law on settlement of bankruptcy assets Bankrupt Debtor.]"

"Kepailitan mempunyai akibat bagi seluruh kreditur, tidak terkecuali Kreditrur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia. Pengembalian uang Debitur kepada Kreditur dalam hal Debitur dinyatakan Pailit akan sangat tergantng pada kedudukan dari kreditur tersebut. Kedudukan Kreditur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia adalah sebagai Kreditur Preferen. Hak ini tidak hapus karena adanya Kepailitan atau likuidasi Debitur Pemberi Jaminan Fidusia. Kreditur Preferen (Secured Creditors) dalam Kepailitan biasanya disebut Kreditur Separatis. Kreditur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia sebagai Kreditur Separatis sangat berkepentingan agar tetap dapat mengeksekusi haknya seolah-oleh tidak terjadi Kepailitan.

---

Bankrupt has effect to all creditors, neither nor creditor fich receive guarantee fiducia. The debt returning of debtor to creditor, in the casa of debtor are nonis as bangkrupt, it's depend on the position of creditor itself. The position of creditors which receives gauarantee fiducia is as secure creditor, their rights are not vanished, because there are bangkrupting and liquidation of debtor guarantee fiducia receiver. Secure creditors are usually called as saparatish creditors. Debtor guarantee fiducia receiving as separatish creditors fas responsible in other to can still execute as if as there are not bangkrupting."

"Penulisan skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan data sekunder sebagai sumber datanya. Adapun yang menjadi pokok permasalahan dalam penulisan ini adalah upaya hukum yang dapat diajukan terhadap penetapan imbalan jasa kurator dan aturan yang dipakai untuk menentukan besaran imbalan jasa kurator pada putusan No. 48PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2013. Bahwa penetapan imbalan jasa kurator merupakan permohonan secara sepihak, tidak ada pihak lawan maka untuk pihak yang dirugikan (PT.Telkomsel) dapat melakukan pembatalan terhadap penetapan tersebut ke Mahkamah Agung. Dan untuk aturan imbalan jasa kurator yang diberlakukan dalam perkara ini yaitu tetap pada peraturan yang lama karena kepailitan PT. Telkomsel telah berakhir sebelum adanya peraturan yang baru.

---

This thesis was using a normative juridical approach as its research method with secondary data as the primary data source. As for the subject matter in writing this thesis was a remedy which may be brought against the determination of costs and compensation for services of curator and the prevailing laws and regulations used to determine such costs and compensation based on the Decision of the Supreme Court of (“Decision”). Whereas, the determination of such costs and compensation was a plea in a unilateral manner, where none of the parties opposed. Thus, the inflicted loss party (PT Telkomsel) may file cancellation against the Decision. The laws and regulations which prevail in this case were the preceding laws and regulations for the reason that this case has ended before the presence of the new regulation."

"Skripsi ini mencoba mengkaji dan membahas mengenai pertanggungjawaban yang dapat dibebankan kepada Kurator secara pribadi apabila terdapat kesalahan dalam tugasnya melakukan pengurusan dan pemberesan harta pailit sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 72 UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Hal tersebut dibahas dengan melihat teori-teori kesalahan yang digunakan sebagai hukum positif di Indonesia, seperti dalam hukum pidana, karena UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 tidak memberikan penjelasan dan pengaturan lebih lanjut mengenai pertanggungjawaban atas kesalahan yang dilakukan Kurator dalam menjalankan tugas pengurusan dan pemberesan harta pailit. Dalam skripsi ini juga akan dibahas mengenai posisi Direksi dalam suatu Perseroan Terbatas yang telah dinyatakan pailit, sebagai organ yang menjalankan pengurusan Perseroan Terbatas pada umumnya. Kemudian dalam skripsi ini akan menganalisis putusan Pengadilan Niaga pada Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya agar lebih relevan.

---

This thesis tries to examine and discuss about the responsibility that can be charged to the Bankruptcy Trustee rsquo s own asset if there is a mistake in his duty to arrangement and ordering the bankrupt property as regulated in Article 72 of Law no. 37 Year 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Obligation of Debt Payment. This is discussed by looking at the theories of error that are used as positive law in Indonesia, as in criminal law, because of Law no. 37 of 2004 does not provide further explanation and regulation regarding the accountability for the mistakes made by the Bankruptcy Trustee in carrying out the task of managing and securing the bankruptcy property. In this thesis will also be discussed about the position of the Board of Directors in a Limited Liability Company that has been declared bankrupt, as an organ that runs the management of Limited Liability Company in general. Then in this thesis will analyze the decision of Commercial Court in Surabaya District Court to be more relevant."

"Dengan meningkatnya pembangunan yang bertitik berat pada bidang ekonomi, dibutuhkan penyediaan dana yang cukup besar, sehingga memerlukan lembaga hak jaminan yang kuat dan mampu memberikan kepastian hukum bagi pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan, yang dapat mendorong peningkatan partisipasi masyarakat dalam pembangunan, hal ini yang menjadi latar belakang lahirnya lembaga jaminan Hak Tanggungan. Skripsi ini menjelaskan mengenai adanya konflik norma di dalam Undang-Undang Hak Tanggungan No.4 Tahun 1996 dan juga di dalam Undang-Undang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang yang mengakibatkan perlindungan dan kepastian hukum bagi kreditor pemegang Hak Tanggungan sebagai Kreditor Separatis yang diatur didalam Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 1996 dapat tidak terwujud. Perlindungan dan kepastian hukum yang diberikan undang-undang kepada kreditor pemegang Hak Tanggungan terdapat di dalam Pasal 1 angka 1 tentang hak preference seorang kreditor; Pasal 6, Pasal 14 ayat (1), (2), dan (3) serta Pasal 20 ayat (2) dan (3) tentang eksekusi Hak Tanggungan; Pasal 11 ayat (2) tentang janji yang harus dicantumkan dalam Akta Pemberian Hak Tanggungan (APHT) untuk melindungi kreditor ketika debitor wanprestasi, serta ketentuan Pasal 7 tentang asas droit de suite yang menyatakan bahwa Hak Tanggungan tetap menjamin objeknya sekalipun beralih kepada pihak ketiga sehingga akan tetap menjamin pelunasan piutang kreditor dan Pasal 21 mengenai “Apabila pemberi Hak Tanggungan dinyatakan pailit, pemegang Hak Tanggungan tetap berwenang melakukan segala hak yang diperolehnya menurut ketentuan undang-undang ini. Kesimpulan dalam penelitian mengenai perlindungan dan kepastian hukum dalam Pasal-Pasal tersebut dapat tidak terwujud dikarenakan adanya konflik norma dalam Pasal 6 UUHT tentang kewenangan menjual sendiri jaminan kebendaan (Parate Eksekusi) dan ketentuan pada Pasal 56 ayat (1) UUKPKPU tentang penangguhan eksekusi bagi kreditor separatis dalam hal kepailitan. Penelitian ini bermetodekan yuridis- normatif yang metode pengambilan data berfokus pada studi literatur hukum dan peraturan perundang-undangan terkait.

---

Along with the increasing development of economy, also required the provision of substantial funds that requires strong institutions which guarantee the rights and able to provide legal certainty for the concerned parties, in which also encourage the growth of community participation in the development, those are the background of the birth of mortgage guarantee agency. This thesis describes the conflict of norms in the Law No.4 of 1996 regarding Mortgage (UUHT) and also in the Law No 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy Act and the Suspension of Payment (UUKPKPU) that may cause legal uncertainty to the protection of mortgage holder creditor as secure creditor based on Law No. 4 of 1996. The protection and legal certainty for mortgage holder creditor contains in Article 1 paragraph 1 regarding the preference right of a creditor; Article 6, Article 14 paragraph (1), (2), and (3) and Article 20 paragraph (2) and (3) of the mortgage execution; Article 11 paragraph (2) on the provision that must be included in the Deed of Granting Mortgage (APHT) to protect creditor when a debtor defaults, as well as the provision of Article 7 of the principle of droit de suite which states that the object remains guarantee, even if it will be switched to a third party, would still guarantee the repayment of creditors’ accounts and Article 21 that states “In the event of bankruptcy, the mortgage holder is authorized to perform any right acquired under the provisions of this law”. The elements of protection and legal certainty in these articles may not be realized due to conflict norms in Article 6 UUHT regarding the authority to sell collateral material (Parate Execution) and the provision of Article 56 paragraph (1) UUKPKPU regarding suspension of execution for the secure creditor in bankruptcy law. This study applies the juridical-normative method of data collection, focusing on the study of the literature of law and related legislation."