Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai pembebanan tanggung jawab hukum kepada ManajerInvestasi akibat pelanggaran hukum yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi sehinggamenyebabkan Manajer Investasi tersebut dijatuhi sanksi administratif oleh OtoritasJasa Keuangan. Dalam tesis ini akan menggunakan studi kasus pencabutan izin usahaManajer Investasi PT. Eurocapital Peregrine Securities (PT EPS). Terdapat duapertanyaan utama dalam tesis ini, yaitu mengenai kesesuaian putusan OJK mencabutizin PT EPS sebagai Manajer Investasi dengan peraturan di bidang pasar modal danmengenai ketepatan putusan Lembaga Peradilan yang menyatakan pelanggaranAnggota Direksi PT EPS menjadi tanggung jawab pribadi Anggota Direksi dan bukantanggung jawab Manajer Investasi. Tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukumnormatif untuk menunjukkan bahwa suatu Manajer Investasi dapat dibebankantanggung jawab akibat pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksimenggunakan Teori Badan Hukum Sebagai Kenyataan Yuridis (juridischeRealiteitsleer). Berdasarkan penelitian, ditemukan Putusan OJK yang mencabut izinPT EPS sebagai Manajer Investasi telah sesuai dengan peraturan di bidang pasarmodal karena dalam UUPM pembebanan tanggung jawab atas pelanggaran yangdilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi Manajer Investasi merupakan beban ManajerInvestasi. Sedangkan Putusan Lembaga Peradilan yang menyatakan pelanggaranAnggota Direksi PT EPS menjadi tanggung jawab pribadi Anggota Direksi sehinggamenyatakan batal pencabutan izin usaha Manajer Investasi atas nama PT EPS adalahkurang tepat. Hal ini dapat karena PT EPS sendiri lemah dalam pengawasankegiatannya. Namun, pembebanan tanggung jawab kepada Manajer Investasi bukanberarti membebaskan tanggung jawab Anggota Direksi atas pelanggaran yangdilakukannnya. Anggota Direksi bertanggung jawab secara pribadi kepada ManajerInvestasi yang telah dirugikannya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about legal liability assessed to an Investment manager dueto tort committed by its Member of Board of Directors, causing the InvestmentManager administrative sanctions by the Financial Services Authority. This thesiswill use case studies permit revocation Investment Manager PT. EurocapitalPeregrine Securities (PT EPS). There are two main questions in this thesis,regarding the suitability of the FSA's decision to revoke permit PT EPS asInvestment Manager with the capital market regulations and the suitability of theInstitute of Justice ruling stating tort of the member of the Board of Directors(member of BOD) of PT EPS is the liability of the member of BOD in personaland not the liability of Investment Manager. This thesis using normative legalresearch methods to indicate that an Investment Manager can be charged with theliability for tort committed by the member of BOD using the Theory of LegalEntity In fact Juridical (Juridische Realiteitsleer). Based on the research, it wasfound that the FSA verdict revoked the licenses of PT EPS as Investment Managerin accordance with the regulations of the capital market since the impositionUUPM liability for tort committed by the member of BOD of the InvestmentManager an Investment Manager burden. Meanwhile, the Institute of Justiceruling stating tort of member of BOD of PT EPS is the liability of the member ofBOD to declare null and revocation of business licenses on behalf of theInvestment Manager PT EPS is less precise. This could be because PT EPSthemselves weak in monitoring activities. However, the imposition of liability tothe Investment Manager not absolve the liability of member of BOD for his tort.The member of BOD is personally liable to the Investment Manager who has beenharmed., This thesis discusses about legal liability assessed to an Investment manager dueto tort committed by its Member of Board of Directors, causing the InvestmentManager administrative sanctions by the Financial Services Authority. This thesiswill use case studies permit revocation Investment Manager PT. EurocapitalPeregrine Securities (PT EPS). There are two main questions in this thesis,regarding the suitability of the FSA's decision to revoke permit PT EPS asInvestment Manager with the capital market regulations and the suitability of theInstitute of Justice ruling stating tort of the member of the Board of Directors(member of BOD) of PT EPS is the liability of the member of BOD in personaland not the liability of Investment Manager. This thesis using normative legalresearch methods to indicate that an Investment Manager can be charged with theliability for tort committed by the member of BOD using the Theory of LegalEntity In fact Juridical (Juridische Realiteitsleer). Based on the research, it wasfound that the FSA verdict revoked the licenses of PT EPS as Investment Managerin accordance with the regulations of the capital market since the impositionUUPM liability for tort committed by the member of BOD of the InvestmentManager an Investment Manager burden. Meanwhile, the Institute of Justiceruling stating tort of member of BOD of PT EPS is the liability of the member ofBOD to declare null and revocation of business licenses on behalf of theInvestment Manager PT EPS is less precise. This could be because PT EPSthemselves weak in monitoring activities. However, the imposition of liability tothe Investment Manager not absolve the liability of member of BOD for his tort.The member of BOD is personally liable to the Investment Manager who has beenharmed.]"

"Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004, kewenangan pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek termasuk Manajer Investasi hanya dapat dilakukan oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK). Namun dalam kenyataannya, terdapat kasus permohonan pernyataan pailit yang diajukan selain oleh OJK dan diterima pengadilan. Terhadap Manajer Investasi yang telah dinyatakan pailit oleh pengadilan, kemudian timbul permasalahan mengenai kewenangan pengelolaan Reksa Dana dari Manajer Investasi yang pailit. Kemudian OJK sebagai regulator pasar modal juga memiliki peranan yang besar namun hingga saat ini belum ada landasan hukumnya. Terkait permasalahan tersebut, bagi kasus permohonan pernyataan pailit kepada Manajer Investasi yang diajukan selain oleh OJK seharusnya tidak dapat diterima dan terhadap Manajer Investasi yang sudah dinyatakan pailit tidak memiliki kewenangan lagi untuk mengelola Reksa Dana. Sedangkan OJK harus segera membuat landasan hukum terkait peranan OJK dalam pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek.

---

According to the law number 37 of 2004, the authority to file a petition for a bankruptcy declaration to securities companies including investment managers can only be exercised by the Financial Services Authority (OJK).  However, there are cases of bankruptcy declaration filing that were submitted other than by the OJK and accepted by the court.  For an investment manager who has been declared bankrupt by the court, then a problem arises regarding the authority to manage Mutual Funds from the bankrupt Investment Manager. Then, OJK as the capital market regulator also has a big role but there is no legal basis, until now. In relation to this problem, the case for a bankruptcy declaration to an Investment Manager that submitted by other than the OJK should not be accepted and an Investment Manager who has been declared bankrupt does not have the authority to manage Mutual Funds. Meanwhile, OJK has to immediately make a legal basis regarding its role in submitting a petition for a bankruptcy declaration for  securities company."

"Direksi sebagai salah satu organ PT berwenang untuk melakukan tindak pengurusan sesuai dengan maksud dan tujuan PT. Namun adakalanya Direksi melakukan tindak pengurusan di luar kewenangan yang dimilikinya.Skripsi ini mengkaji tentang akibat hukum dan pertanggung jawaban anggota direksi yang melakukan perbuatan hukum yang dilakukan di luar kewenangannya, serta menganalisis putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 55/k/Pdt/2009 yang menetapkan anggota direksi H. Anhar HA.Wahab tidak bersalah atas perbuatan melawan hukum melakukan perjanjian kredit dengan Bank Pembangunan Daerah NTB.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa tindakan direksi yang dilakukan di luar kewenangannya tidak memiliki akibat hukum terhadap PT kecuali PT meratifikasinya, anggota direksi yang melakukan perbuatan hukum di luar kewenangannya dapat bertanggung jawab secara pribadi dan tanggung renteng, dan putusan MA yang menetapkan Anhar sebagai Direktur Utama PT. Lamere tidak bersalah adalah tepat karena tidak bertentangan dengan ketentuan ADPT dan UUPT. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif yang menggunakan data sekunder sebagai data utamanya.

---

Board of Directors as one of the organs Company Limited shall be liable for the management of the Company for the interest of the Company and in accordance with the objectives and purposes of the Company. However sometimes the maintenance of Directors committed outside its authority. This thesis analyse about legal consequences and responsibilities of the directors who act outside the authority of the law, as well as analyze the Supreme Court decision No.55/k/Pdt/2009 which establishes a director PT. Lamere is not guilty of unlawful conduct credit agreement with Bank Pembangunan Daerah NTB.

This research has founded that the directors act committed outside the authority has no legal effect on PT but PT ratified, member of the board of directors who perform legal acts outside the authority to take severally and jointly liability, and a Supreme Court decision that set Anhar as President Director of PT. Lamere not guilty is precisely because it does not conflict with the provisions of Article of Association PT and Company Law. This research is a normative juridical using secondary data as main data."

"Suatu perseroan terbatas pada dasarnya didirikan untuk melakukan suatu kegiatan usaha. Namun di dalam praktik terdapat suatu perseroan terbatas yang disebut PT Kosong karena tidak lagi menjalankan kegiatan usahanya. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, tesis ini membahas dua permasalahan. Pertama, tentang status hukum dari suatu PT X sebagai PT Kosong akibat terjadi ketiadaan Direksi. Kedua, membahas bagaimana tanggung jawab organ PT X dalam hal adanya kewajiban PT X terhadap pihak ke-tiga. Penulisan dalam tesis ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif.Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa PT X sekalipun tidak lagi menjalankan kegiatan usahanya sehingga dapat disebut sebagai PT Kosong, pada dasarnya masih sah sebagai badan hukum sehingga segala hak dan kewajiban sebagai badan hukum masih melekat pada PT X. Status badan hukum suatu perseroan terbatas hanya hilang dalam dilakukan pembubaran. Dalam hal muncul kewajiban terhadap pihak ke-tiga, maka seperti perseroan terbatas pada umumnya, setiap organ akan bertanggung jawab secara terbatas. Namun tanggung jawab terbatas itu dapat hilang apabila organ-organ PT X terbukti tidak menjalankan fungsinya dengan berdasarkan prinsip fiduciary duty.

---

Basically a limited liability company established to undertake a business activity. But in practice, there is a limited liability company called inactive limited liability because no longer run their business activities. Based on it, this thesis addresses two issues. Firstly, concerning the legal status of PT X as an inactive limited liability company which caused by the absence of the Board of Directors. Secondly, discusses how is the responsibility PT X?s organs to the third parties. This thesis is written by using normative methods.

The results found that PT X though no longer running its operations so it can be referred as inactive limited liability company, basically still valid as a legal entity so that all rights and obligations as a legal entity is still attached to the PT X. Legal entity status of a limited liability company will only vanish in case of dissolution. In relation with obligation to the third party, then as same as in a general limited liability company, every organ will be responsible on a limited basis. However, the limited liability may be lost if the organs of PT X are proved not to carry out their functions under the principle of fiduciary duty."

"Pelayanan dan produk hukum yang dihasilkan oleh seorang notaris tidak dapat dilepaskan dari kelancaran dan kepastian hukum usaha/bisnis yang dilakukan oleh para pelaku usaha. Fungsi dan peran notaris dalam kegiatan usaha/bisnis terutama berkaitan dengan perseroan terbatas dapat dikatakan semakin meluas, demikian pula dengan tanggung jawabnya. Sehubungan dengan tanggung jawab tersebut, terdapat perbedaan pandangan di kalangan notaris mengenai apakah notaris bertanggungjawab atas kebenaran materiil suatu akta. Pada kenyataannya banyak notaris yang saat ini terjerat kasus yang mewajibkannya untuk turut bertanggung jawab atas kebenaran materiil akta autentik. Salah satu bentuk tanggung jawab yang kerap dikonstruksikan kepada notaris atas akta autentik yang dibuatnya, khususnya akta yang berkaitan dengan perseroan terbatas, adalah dengan menggunakan dalil Perbuatan Melawan Hukum. Tesis ini membahas mengenai bagaimana bentuk tanggung jawab notaris terhadap akta autentik yang dibuatnya, khususnya berkaitan dengan perseroan terbatas, dalam hal dalil Perbuatan Melawan Hukum yang dituntut terhadapnya dapat dibuktikan secara sah di pengadilan dan bagaimana bentuk ganti kerugian yang dapat dibebankan kepada notaris dikaitkan dengan studi kasus yang secara riil terjadi di masyarakat. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif dan pendekatan deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa notaris dapat dikenakan tanggung jawab secara hukum terhadap akta autentik berkaitan dengan perseroan terbatas dilihat dari sudut pandang Undang-undang Jabatan Notaris, Undang-undang Perseroan Terbatas dan hukum perdata dengan konstruksi Perbuatan Melawan Hukum, sehingga notaris dapat dibebankan ganti kerugian berupa dinyatakan batal demi hukum akta autentik yang dibuatnya.

---

Legal services and products which are provided by a notary cannot surely remain distinct or separate from the smoothness and legal certainty of any business conducted by business actors. Notary functions and roles in the business activities, as well as his liabilities, particularly related to the limited liability companies, were revealed to becoming more widespread. Moreover, in relation to notary liabilities, multiple debates come off among the notaries regarding whether a notary should be responsible for every material truth of a deed. In fact, many notaries are currently defeated in loads cases which oblige them to take responsibility for any misconduct against the material truth of their authentic deed. A form of notary liability which is commonly construed to the authentic deed provided by notary, especially any deed related to a limited liability company, is Tort Liability (Perbuatan Melawan Hukum).

This thesis examines the notary liability on the notary' authentic deed, especially with regard to a limited liability company, on a study case in which the Tort (Perbuatan Melawan Hukum) lawsuit was proven in the court of law and regarding the form of indemnity that may be ascribed to a notary in real terms in society. This research is conducted by using qualitative method and descriptive approach.

The results of the research indicate that a notary shall legally be liable to his authentic deeds, particularly relating to the limited liability company, in terms of the Notary Act, Limited Liability Company Law and civil law refer to Tort Liability (Perbuatan Melawan Hukum), then consequently he shall bear charge for damages i.e. the authentic deed he made shall constitute as null and void."

"Tesis ini menganalisis bentuk tanggung jawab anggota Direksi dan anggota Dewan Komisaris atas kerugian Perseroan Terbatas Penanaman Modal Asing dan menganalisis akibat hukum bagi anggota Direksi dan anggota Dewan Komisaris yang telah merugikan Perseroan Terbatas Penanaman Modal Asing dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Batam Nomor:289/Pdt.G/2017/PN Btm. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus. Tesis ini menyimpulkan beberapa hal. Pertama, bentuk tanggung jawab anggota Direksi dan anggota Dewan Komisaris atas kerugian Perseroan Terbatas Penanaman Modal Asing (PT PMA) berupa tanggung jawab secara perdata dan/atau secara pidana. Tanggung jawab secara perdata berupa anggota Direksi dan Dewan Komisaris tersebut dihukum bertanggung jawab secara pribadi membayar ganti kerugian materiil berupa sejumlah uang kepada PT PMA yang telah dirugikan. Tanggung jawab secara pidana berupa anggota Direksi dan Dewan Komisaris tersebut dijatuhi sanksi pidana berupa pidana penjara dan/atau pidana denda. Kedua, Akibat hukum bagi anggota Direksi dan anggota Dewan Komisaris yang telah merugikan Perseroan Terbatas Penanaman Modal Asing (PT PMA) dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Batam Nomor:289/Pdt.G/2017/PN Btm yaitu anggota Direksi dan Dewan Komisaris yang terbukti bersalah atau lalai dalam menjalankan tugasnya tersebut dihukum untuk bertanggung jawab secara pribadi atas kerugian yang dialami oleh PT PMA dan dihukum untuk secara tanggung renteng membayar ganti kerugian materiil sejumlah USD 78,284.6 kepada PT PMA yang telah dirugikan. Doktrin business judgement rule tidak digunakan dalam Putusan tersebut karena Para Tergugat terbukti bersalah atau lalai dalam menjalankan tugasnya, melanggar anggaran dasar dan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas serta telah melakukan ultra vires.

---

This thesis analyzes the form of responsibility of members of the Board of Directors and members of the Board of Commissioners upon losses of the Foreign Investment Limited Liability Company and analyzes the legal consequences for members of the Board of Directors and members of the Board of Commissioners that to harm the Foreign Investment Limited Liability Company in the Verdict of Batam District Court Number:289/Pdt.G/2017/PN Btm. This research uses a normative juridical research method with a case approach. This thesis concludes several things. First, the form of responsibility of members of the Board of Directors and members of the Board of Commissioners upon losses of the Foreign Investment Limited Liability Company (PT PMA) in the form of civil liability and/or criminal liability. The civil liability in the form of members of the Board of Directors and the Board of Commissioners punished to be personally responsible to pay material compensation in the form of a sum of money to PT PMA that has been harmed. The criminal responsibility in the form of members of the Board of Directors and the Board of Commissioners imposed a criminal sanction in the form of imprisonment sanction and/or fines sanction. Second, the legal consequences for members of the Board of Directors and members of the Board of Commissioners that to harm the Foreign Investment Limited Liability Company (PT PMA) in the Verdict of Batam District Court Number: 289/Pdt.G/2017/PN Btm namely the members of the Board of Directors and the Board of Commissioners that are found guilty or negligence in carrying out his duties punished to be personally responsible for losses suffered by PT PMA and punished jointly to pay material compensation in the amount of USD 78,284.6 to PT PMA that has been harmed. The business judgment rule doctrine is not used in the Verdict because the Defendants had been proven guilty or negligent in carrying out their duties, to violate the articles of association and the Limited Liability Company Law and had carried out the ultra vires."