Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[Perjanjian simulasi merupakan suatu perjanjian dimana peristiwa hukum dalam perjanjian tersebut tidak benar-benar terjadi. Pernjanjian simulasi banyam dibuat oleh pihak-pihak yang menghendaki adanya akibat hukum dari pernjanjian simulasi tersebut meskipun peristiwa hukum yang diperjanjikan adalah suatu hal atau kausa yang palsu karena tidak benar-benar terjadi. Penulisan tesis ini adalah untuk meneliti kekuatan hukum dan kekuatan pembuktian dari pernjanjian simulasi dengan menggunakan metode penelitian library reserach dengan menggunakan studi dokumen dan wawancara narasumber sebagai alat pengumpul data. Dari hasil penelitian tersebut dapat dinyatakan bahwa sesuai Pasal 1335 KUHPerdata, suatu perjanjian tanpa sebab atau yang telah dibuat karena sesuatu sebab yang palsu atau terlarang, tidak mempunyai kekuatan. Kausa yang palsu dapat terjadi jika suatu kausa yang tidak sesuai dengan keadaan sebenarnya atau kausa yang disimulasikan. Dengan demikian pernjanjian simulasi tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat dan oleh karenanya tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat.;Simulation agreement is an agreement where the legal events on the agreement is not actually occurring. Many simulations agreement made by the parties who requires the legal consequences of the simulated agreement eventhough the legal event on the agreement is a false causes since it does not really occur. This thesis is to examine the legal force and evidentiary force of the simulation agreement with using libraryresearch method with document study and interview as the method of data collecting. From the result of the examination, in accordance with Article 1335 of Indonesia Civil Code, an agreement without cause or which have been made with a false matter or prohibited reasons, does not have a legal force. A False causes can occur in case that causes is not correspond to the actual circumstances or that is a simulated causes. Therefore the simulation agreement does not have a binding legal force and therefore does not have an evidentiary force, Simulation agreement is an agreement where the legal events on the agreement is notactually occurring. Many simulations agreement made by the parties who requires thelegal consequences of the simulated agreement eventhough the legal event on theagreement is a false causes since it does not really occur. This thesis is to examine thelegal force and evidentiary force of the simulation agreement with using libraryresearch method with document study and interview as the method of data collecting.From the result of the examination, in accordance with Article 1335 of IndonesiaCivil Code, an agreement without cause or which have been made with a false matteror prohibited reasons, does not have a legal force. A False causes can occur in casethat causes is not correspond to the actual circumstances or that is a simulated causes.Therefore the simulation agreement does not have a binding legal force and thereforedoes not have an evidentiary force]"

"[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui mengenai kekuatan hukumklausula mengenai gadai saham yang akan ada dikemudian hari dalam suatu akta gadai saham, dan bagaimana implikasi menjadikan saham yang akan ada dikemudian hari tersebut sebagai agunan atas suatu perjanjian pokok. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder, diantaranya peraturan perundang-undangan dan buku. Dari hasil penelitian diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa saham yang akan ada dikemudian hari belum dapat dijadikan benda jaminan, namun saham tersebut baru dapat dijadikansebagai benda gadai setelah saham tersebut lahir dan ada. Hal ini dikarenakan pengaturan gadai dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata mensyaratkan suatu penyerahan atau inbezitstelling dari pemberi gadai kepada penerima gadai sebagai syarat agar sahnya suatu gadai yang mana baru dapat dilakukan apabila benda jaminan tersebut telah lahir dan ada.;This research aims to find out the legal force of a clause in a Pledge of Shares Agreement that portend to pledge a shares that would exist in the future as a collateral, and to find out the enforcement of it. The methode of this research is normative juridical law by using secondary data, such as legislation, and books. From this research, it is concluded, that shares that have not existed is unable and not eligible to be an object of pledge, but it will be eligible to be a collateral as an object of pledge when the shares are born and exist. It is as regulated on Indonesian Civil Code that assign inbezitstelling as mandatory provision to pledge an object. Inbezitstelling or handover will be able to held when the object of inbezitstelling is born and exist.;This research aims to find out the legal force of a clause in a Pledge of Shares Agreement that portend to pledge a shares that would exist in the future as a collateral, and to find out the enforcement of it. The methode of this research is normative juridical law by using secondary data, such as legislation, and books. From this research, it is concluded, that shares that have not existed is unable and not eligible to be an object of pledge, but it will be eligible to be a collateral as anobject of pledge when the shares are born and exist. It is as regulated on Indonesian Civil Code that assign inbezitstelling as mandatory provision to pledge an object. Inbezitstelling or handover will be able to held when the object of inbezitstelling is born and exist., This research aims to find out the legal force of a clause in a Pledge ofShares Agreement that portend to pledge a shares that would exist in the future asa collateral, and to find out the enforcement of it. The methode of this research isnormative juridical law by using secondary data, such as legislation, and books.From this research, it is concluded, that shares that have not existed is unable andnot eligible to be an object of pledge, but it will be eligible to be a collateral as anobject of pledge when the shares are born and exist. It is as regulated onIndonesian Civil Code that assign inbezitstelling as mandatory provision to pledgean object. Inbezitstelling or handover will be able to held when the object ofinbezitstelling is born and exist.]"

"Tesis ini dilatarbelakangi oleh maraknya pembuatan penjaminan atas saham dalam perseroan terbatas tertutup untuk jaminan suatu hutang berdasarkan lembaga jaminan gadai selama ini, sementara berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia, pembuatan jaminan atas saham dapat juga dilakukan dengan menggunakan lembaga jaminan fidusia. Oleh karenanya hal itu menimbulkan pertanyaan bagi penulis, mengapa para pihak pada umumnya, atau penerima jaminan atas saham pada khususnya, lebih memilih lembaga jaminan gadai daripada menggunakan lembaga jaminan fidusia. Apakah keunggulan penggunaan lembaga jaminan gadai dibandingkan lembaga jaminan fidusia. Apakah memang lembaga jaminan gadai memberikan perlindungan hukum yang lebih baik dibandingkan lembaga jaminan fidusia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif. Oleh karena itu, lebih lanjut tesis ini akan membahas mengenai tinjauan yuridis mengenai konsep saham, lembaga jaminan gadai dan lembaga jaminan fidusia, prosedur gadai saham dan fidusia atas saham serta perbandingan perlindungan hukum yang diberikan oleh ketentuan perundang-undangan bagi pemegang jaminan atas saham dalam perseroan terbatas tertutup berdasarkan konsep lembaga jaminan gadai dan lembaga jaminan fidusia. Hasil penelitian dalam tesis ini adalah bahwa lembaga jaminan gadai lebih baik digunakan untuk penjaminan atas saham dalam perseroan terbatas tertutup dibandingkan lembaga jaminan fidusia.

---

The background of this research is that nowadays there is so many granting of shares as debt collateral in the form of pledge of shares in the closed limited liability company, whereas based on Law No. 42 Year 1999 concerning Fiduciary Security, the granting of shares as debt collateral might be given in the form of fiduciary security. This fact, therefore, raise questions for the writer, why the concerned parties in general, or the grantee or the holder of the shares collateral in this matter, prefer to use security institution of pledge other than the security institution of fiduciary security. What the advantages of using the security institution of pledge other than the security institution of fiduciary security are. Whether security institution of pledge shall give legal protection better than the security institution of fiduciary security.

The research method for this thesis is judicial normative. Therefore, further, this thesis shall discuss the legal review regarding the legal concept of shares, security institution of pledge and security institution of fiduciary security, the procedure of security institution of pledge of shares and security institution of fiduciary security upon shares, and also the comparative legal protection given by the laws and regulations to the holder of collateral upon shares in the closed limited liability company based on the security concepts of pledge and fiduciary security. The research result is that the security institution of pledge of shares shall be better than the security institution of fiduciary security upon shares."

"Gadai merupakan salah satu bentuk pemberian jaminan dalam rangka menjamin pelunasan fasilitas kredit. Permasalahan timbul saat penerima gadai bermaksud melelang objek gadai berupa saham berdasarkan Pasal 1155 KUHPerdata dimana penerima gadai tidak dipersyaratkan untuk melibatkan hakim melalui pelelangan namum dalam praktik hukum pejabat lelang mempersyaratkan penetapan pengadilan dalam rangka ekskusi gadai saham melalui lelang. Metode Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yang bersifat yuridis normatif, yakni penelitian yang memfokuskan pada penggunaan norma hukum tertulis serta ditopang dengan hasil dialog atau wawancara dengan narasumber dan informan yang berkompeten. Kesimpulan yang diraih adalah realitas pelaksanaan gadai saham yang berbeda antara hukum tertulis dan praktik hukum dimana dalam rangka eksekusi gadai saham melalui lelang maka pejabat lelang mempersyaratkan penetapan pengadilan sehingga menimbulkan multitafsir.Hukum gadai saham wajib memberikan manfaat hukum bagi dunia usaha agar lembaga gadai saham dapat berperan secara maksimal serta memberikan kontribusi bagi peningkatan perekonomian khususnya menghilangkan rasa takut bagi kreditor atas lembaga gadai saham. Adapun saran yang dapat diberikan adalah pembentuk Undang-undang dapat menyusun perundangundangan tentang gadai secara sistematis dan terperinci serta lengkap dalam rangka kepastian hukum serta perlindungan hukum sehingga jaminan gadai dapat mendukung transaksi dalam perekonomian.

---

Pledge is one of the form of security in order to guarantee the full payment of credit facility. The legal issue occurred when the pledgee intends to have the auction on the the object of pledge which are shares based on Article 1155 of Civil Code whereby the pledgee is not required to involve the judge but in legal practice the auctioneer wolud require the court order in the framework of the execution of pledge of shares through auction. This research method is a normative juridical research, which focuses on the use of written legal norms and is supported by the results of dialogue or interviews with competent sources and informants. Conclusions reached understanding the reality of the implementation of execution of pledged shares through auction that is different between written law and legal practice, whereby the auctioner will require the court order which cause various of intepretations. The pledged shares law is obliged to provide legal benefits for the business world so that the pledged shares institution can play a maximum role and contribute to economic improvement in particular to eliminate the fear of the creditor to the pledged shares institution. There are suggestions that can be given. Legislators can compile legislation on pledge in a systematic and detailed and complete manner in the framework of legal certainty and legal protection so that the pledge can support transactions in the economy."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai tinjauan yuridis mengenai Gadai Tanah dan putusan Mahkamah Agung atas kasus Gadai Tanah dalam perspektif hukum jaminan keperdataan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif analitis . Walaupun Gadai Tanah adalah suatu perbuatan hukum yang berdiri sendiri, tetapi dalam Perspektif Hukum Jaminan Kerperdataan, khususnya Gadai secara Perdata maka Gadai Tanah mengandung beberapa ketentuan-ketentuan yang mengatur Gadai secara Perdata karena dasarnya merupakan hubungan hukum yang sama dengan Gadai secara Perdata. Bahwa putusan Mahkamah Agung mengenai kasus gadai tanah umumnya berdasarkan hukum acara di pengadilan dan PERPU No. 56 Tahun 1960, bukan berdasarkan hukum jaminan keperdataan.

---

The focus of this study discusses about judicial review on land pledge and The Supreme Court decisions of land pledge cases in civil collateral law perspective. This research is qualitative research with descriptive analytic design. Land Pledge is a separated legal act, however from civil collateral law perspective in connection with civil pledge, there are several provisions related to land pledge are similiar to civil pledge since it has equal legal relation. Whereas The Supreme Court decisions concerning land pledge cases are generally based on court practice law and Goverment Regulations, not based on civil collateral law."

"KPBU merupakan salah satu skema pengadaan infrastuktur publik yang melibatkan swasta dengan alokasi risiko diantara para pihak terkait. Project finance merupakan salah satu mekanisme pembiayaan KPBU. Indonesia menjadi salah satu negara anggota yang meminjam dana dari IBRD Bank Dunia, sehingga terikat dengan General Conditions for IBRD Financing yang salah satu ketentuanya mengatur terkait negative pledge. Penelitian ini akan menjawab permasalahan terkait regulasi dan mekanisme pembiayaan proyek KPBU dengan skema project finance dan kaitannya dengan WBNP. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan tipe penelitian deskriptif. KPBU menggunakan skema BOT, dimana SPV bertanggung jawab atas pembiayaan, pembangunan, dan pengoperasian proyek selama masa konsesi. Project finance sendiri merupakan skema pembiayaan KPBU yang menjadikan SPV sebagai pihak peminjam dana dengan sistem limited recourse. Project finance belum diatur secara spesfik dalam hukum Indonesia, namun pelaksanaanya dapat merujuk kepada peraturan perundang-undangan terkait perbankan, agunan, dan pelaksanaan perkreditan dan pembiayaan bagi bank umum. Klausul negative pledge Bank Dunia mengatur bahwa dalam hal terdapat peletakan kepentingan jaminan di atas aset publik terkait utang dengan pihak ketiga (tanpa persetujuan Bank Dunia), akan memberikan IBRD Bank Dunia kepentingan jaminan yang sama dan pro rata atas aset yang bersangkutan. Klausula tersebut memiliki keterkaitan dengan status jaminan proyek dan kedudukan kreditor senior pada project finance, dimana project finance dapat menjadi skema pembiayaan alternatif untuk menghindari keberlakuan negative pledge Bank Dunia. Pendefinisian aset publik yang sangat luas dalam General Conditions for IBRD Financing harus dispesifikasi dan project finance dapat dikecualikan dari keberlakuan negative pledge Bank Dunia.

---

PPP is one of the schemes used in public project procurement which is involving the private sector with risk allocation between the related parties. As Indonesia is one of the member countries of the IBRD loan program, it is subject to General Conditions for IBRD Financing which one of the provisions is the negative pledge. This research would solve the problem regarding regulation and mechanism of the project finance and its connection to World Bank Negative Pledge. This research uses a normative legal research method with a descriptive research type. PPP is applying a BOT scheme, where SPV is liable for the project’s financing, construction, and operation risk during the concession period. Project finance is a PPP financing scheme in which SPV is the party of the financing agreement with a limited recourse system. Project finance is not yet regulated specifically in Indonesia and the implementation is subject to the law and regulations regarding banking, securities, and the application of credit and finance for commercial banks. World Bank Negative Pledge Clause stipulates that any lien created on any public assets without World Bank consent, those assets will equally and ratably secure IBRD Loan Payments. The clause is having a correlation with the project collaterals, securities status, and senior lender standing in the project finance, where the presence of project finance is the alternative scheme to avert the effectuation of negative pledge to the public infrastructure financing. For recommendations, the broad scope of public asset definition ought to be specified and the project finance could be stipulated as the negative pledge exceptions for the foreign investor certainty."

"Konsep nominee berasal dari Pranata Hukum Trust yang berasal dari Tradisi Hukum Common Law. Dapat masuk konsep nominee-nya di Indonesia yang menggunakan Tradisi Hukum Civil Law, dilatarbelakangi oleh adanya proses perdagangan lintas negara dan proses globalisasi. Dalam praktiknya, konsep nominee dapat digunakan karena adanya sistem hukum terbuka dan asas kebebasan berkontrak pada hukum perjanjian di Indonesia. Namun perlu diingat agar suatu perjanjian sah dan memiliki kekuatan hukum maka perjanjian tersebut harus memenuhi syarat sah perjanjian, salah satunya ‘sebab yang halal’.Di Indonesia, terdapat peraturan yang melarang praktik nominee atas saham, yaitu pasal 33 ayat (1) dan (2) Undang Undang Penanaman Modal. Dengan adanya ketentuan tersebut maka perjanjian yang terdapat ketentuan nominee atas saham adalah perjanjian yang batal demi hukum. Kemudian, sesuai dengan ketentuan pasal 584 KUHPer, Indonesia menerapkan sistem penyerahan kausal dimana sah atau tidaknya perjanjian obligator juga akan mempengaruhi sah atau tidaknya proses penyerahan hak milik. Dengan demikian, penyerahan hak milik atas saham PT KISB yang didasari oleh perjanjian jual beli saham yang terdapat ketentuan nominee saham tidaklah sah.

---

Nominee concept come from Legal Institution Trust which is come from Common Law Legal Tradition. The Inclusion of nominee concept in Indonesia, who use Civil Law Legal Tradition, is caused by the international trading and globalization. In practice, nominee concept can be used because of open system and principle of freedom of contract in Law Agreement in Indonesia. But it must be remembered, that agreement should follows the requisite legal agreement, which one of them is ‘legal cause’.

In Indonesia, there is a regulation that prohibit the practice of nominee share, and that regulation is article 33 paragraph (1) and (2) of Investment Law. So, with that regulation, any agreement contained the nominee share clause will be null and void. Then refer to the article 584 of The Books of Civil Law, Indonesia use the causal system, where in this system the validity of the obligator agreement will be influence the validity of the transfer ownership process. Thus, the transfer ownership of PT KIBS shares, which are based on share purchase agreement that contained nominee share clause, is invalid."

"ABSTRAKTerkait dengan parate eksekusi didalam ketentuan eksekusi gadai saham, pelaksanaan gadai saham pada praktiknya menimbulkan permasalahan hukum, khususnya dalam pengeksekusiannya. Hal tersebut ditandai dengan adanya penafsiran yang berbeda mengenai eksekusi gadai saham oleh praktisi hukum maupun yang dihasilkan oleh pengadilan, khususnya Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia, terkait dengan pengaturan jangka waktu dalam perjanjian gadai itu sendiri. Hal ini menggambarkan belum ada kesamaan penafsiran terhadap eksekusi gadai saham di Indonesia. Tentunya, perbedaan-perbedaan penafsiran inilah yang nantinya dalam praktik menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum, khususnya yang terjadi dalam sengketa perjanjian gadai saham antara PT. BFI Finance, Tbk (PT. BFI) selaku pemegang gadai dengan PT. Ongko Multicorpora (PT. OM) dan PT. Aryaputra Teguharta (PT. APT) selaku pemberi gadai. PT.APT dan PT. OM mendalilkan jangka waktu Perjanjian Gadai Saham adalah 12 (dua belas) bulan terhitung sejak tanggal perjanjian, karena itu tanggal jatuh tempo Akta Gadai Saham adalah 1 Juni 2000 dan akibat hukum berakhirnya jangka waktu gadai adalah objek gadai, yaitu saham-saham yang digadaikan Pemberi Gadai sudah tidak lagi terikat sebagai jaminan hutang kepada PT.BFI. oleh karena itu pelaksanaan eksekusi gadai saham oleh PT. BFI dengan menjual saham-saham milik Pemberi Gadai pada tanggal 9 Februari 2001 dianggap sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum. Berdasarkan dalil Pemberi Gadai tersebut, Majelis Hakim Agung dalam putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 240 PK/pdt/2006 mengabulkan gugatan Pemberi Gadai (PT. APT) dan menyatakan tidak sah pelaksanaan eksekusi atas gadai saham yang dilakukan PT. BFI. Namun terhadap Putusan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali No. 240 PK/Pdt/2006 tanggal 20 Februari 2007 ternyata terdapat perbedaan baik didalam pertimbangan dan hasil putusan yang kemudian diajukan oleh PT. OM dalam Putusan Peninjauan Kembali Mahkamah Agung RI No. 115 PK/Pdt.2007 dimana pelaksanaan eksekusi gadai saham oleh PT.BFI adalah sah menurut hukum. Untuk menjawab permasalahan perbedaan penafsiran tersebut, dilakukan penelitian secara normative terhadap putusan Mahkamah Agung dan peraturan perundang-undangan yang mendasarinya. Pengolahan data secara kualitatif, sedangkan pengambilan kesimpulan dilakukan dengan menggunakan logika deduktif. Dengan metode ini diharapkan kesimpulan yang disampaikan dalam tesis ini dapat menjawab permasalahan kepastian hukum mengenai pelaksanaan eksekusi atas gadai saham, dalam hal jangka waktu perjanjian gadai telah berakhir tetapi hutang debitor belum dilunasi seluruhnya.

---

ABSTRACTThe implementation of pledge on shares raises legal issues, particularly in the enforcement of the execution in the provision of pledge on shares. It is characterized by the existence of different interpretations regarding to legal opinion of the execution on pledge of shares, related to period time in pledge of shares agreement, by legal practitioners nor the Court, especially the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. This illustrates that the execution of pledge of shares in Indonesia has not yet had similar interpretation in legal framework of pledge. The differences of this interpretation is what will create legal uncertainty, especially those that occur in pledge of shares agreement disputes between PT. BFI Finance Tbk (PT BFI) as "pledgee" with PT. Ongko Multicorpora (PT OM) and PT. Aryaputra Teguharta (PT APT) as "pledgor". PT.APT and PT. OM postulated that Pledge of Shares Agreement term is during 12 (twelve) months from the date of the agreement, hence the agreement is ended in June 1, 2000. The expiry of period time in pledge of shares agreement is that pledge property, the shares which is guaranteed by pledgor is no longer bound as collateral to PT.BFI as pledgee. Therefore the execution of pledge of shares by PT. BFI which selling the pledgor shares on February 9, 2001 is considered as a tort. Based on the pledgor arguments, the Supreme Council of Judges in judicial review of the Supreme Court decision No. 240 PK/pdt/2006 fulfill pledgor (PT APT) petition and outlawed the execution of the pledged shares selling by PT. BFI. However, the Petition for Judicial Review Decision of supreme court No. 240 PK/Pdt/2006 dated February 20, 2007 turned out there is a controversial. It is because of difference both in judgment and the verdict which was then filed by PT. OM in judicial review of the Supreme Court decision No. 115 PK/Pdt.2007. Its judge that the enforcement of execution of pledged shares by PT. BFI was lawful. This Thesis is using a normative research towards the supreme court verdict and legislation underlying to answer the legal issues which has proposed above. In addition, it uses Qualitative data processing, while the conclusions made with deductive logic. With these method are expected conclusions presented in its can answer the problem of legal certainty regarding the execution of the pledge on shares, especially in which case the contract period has ended but debtor has not fulfill the debt."