Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"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."

"[ABSTRAKUndang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas menetapkan 3 (tiga) organ perseroan yaitu Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris. Direksi berfungsi pada pokoknya untuk bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan sedangkan Dewan Komisaris berfungsi melakukan pengawasan umum dan/atau khusus sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar serta memberi nasihat kepada Direksi. Pada setiap masa akhir jabatannya, Direksi mempertanggung jawabkan pengurusan perseroan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, yang memiliki kewenangan yang tidak diberikan kepada Direksi atau Dewan Komisaris dalam batas yang ditentukan Undang-Undang dan/atau Anggaran Dasar perseroan. Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham kemudian memberikan pelunasan dan pembebasan tanggung jawab (acquit et de charge) kepada Direksi jika tindakan kepengurusan perseroan telah tercermin dalam laporan keuangan.Pada tahun 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media sebagai perseroan yang menyediakan jasa internet (Internet Service Provider) menyelenggarakan jasanya melalui jaringan bergerak seluler milik PT Indosat Tbk melalui perjanjian kerjasama broadband. Kerjasama ini telah dipertanggung jawabkan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham pada tahun 2011 dan telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge kepada Direksi yang diwakili oleh Indar Atmanto selaku Direktur Utama. Kejaksaan Agung sebagai aparat penegak hukum mendakwa Indar Atmanto telah menggunakan frekuensi 2.1 GHz (3G) untuk menyelenggarakan jasa internetnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian negara sedangkan telah diketahui Direksi telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Permasalahan hukum timbul atas pertanyaan sejauh mana acquit et de charge melindungi Direksi secara perdata dan pidana.

---

ABSTRACTAct No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment., Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.]"

"Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja (UU CK) merupakan bentuk upaya Indonesia dalam melakukan reformasi struktural danmempercepat transformasi ekonomi. Perseroan Perorangan merupakan produk yang dibuat oleh diterbitkannya UU CK dan merupakan bentuk realisasi dari klaster Persyaratan Investasi, Kemudahan Berusaha, dan Pemberdayaan dan Perlindungan UMKM. Perseroan Perorangan merupakan bentuk Perseroan yang memenuhi kriteria untuk usaha mikro dan kecil yang didirikan oleh satu orang. UU CK mengubah tata cara Sistem Perizinan Berusaha dari Perizinan Berusaha Berbasis Perizinan menjadi Sistem Perizinan Berusaha Berbasis Risiko/Risk Based. Sistem Perizinan Berusaha Berbasis Risiko/Risk Based diberlakukan bagi seluruh Pelaku Usaha termasuk UMKM berbentuk Perseroan Perorangan. Skripsi berisikan penelitian atas pelaksanaan Perizinan Berusaha Risk Based terhadap Pelaku UMKM yang berbentuk Perseroan Perorangan dengan sampelpenerapan Peraturan Sektoral Kementerian Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan, Kesehatan, Lingkungan Hidup danKehutanan, dan Perhubungan terhadap Perseroan Perorangan. Pengaturan terkait Tingkatan Risiko pada Kegiatan Usaha Risk Based tidak memberikan akibat bagi Perseroan Perorangan dikarenakan klasifikasi yang harus dipenuhi Perseroan Perorangan untuk melakukan kegiatan usaha didasari oleh Skala Usaha Mikro dan Kecil bukan Tingkatan Risiko sehingga merujuk pada peraturan sektoral masing-masing kementerian terdapat jenis perizinan yang berbeda-beda sehingga tidak ditemukan kaitanantara tingkatan risiko dengan jenis perizinan.

---

Omnibus Law on Job Creation is a form of Indonesia's efforts to carry out structural reforms and accelerate economic transformation. Single Member Limited Liability Company is a product created by the issuance of the Omnibus Law and is a form of realization of the Investment Requirements, Ease of Doing Business, and Micro Single Medium Enterprises (MSME) Empowerment and Protection clusters. Single Member Limited Liability Company (SMLLC) is a form of company that meets the criteria for micro and small businesses founded by one person. The Omnibus Law changes the procedures for the BusinessLicensing System from a Permit-Based Business Licensing to a Risk-Based Business Licensing System. The Risk-Based Business Licensing System is applied to all Businesses, including MSMEs in the form of SMLLC. This thesis contains researchon the implementation of Risk- Based Business Licensing against SMLCC with a sample of the application of the SectoralRegulations of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, andMinistry of Transportation to SMLLC. Regulations related to Risk Levels in Risk Based Business Activities do not have any consequences for SMLLC because the classification that must be fulfilled SMLLC to carry out business activities is based on Business Scale and not Risk Levels so that referring to the sectoral regulations of each ministry there are different types of permits so that there is no correlation between the level of risk and the type of permit."

"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."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai peranan dan tanggung jawab seorang Notaris terkait penyetoran modal pada saat pendirian suatu Perseroan Terbatas (Perseroan), studi kasus pendirian PT ABC. Penyetoran Modal wajib dilakukan oleh para pendiri Perseroan sebelum Perseroan memperoleh pengesahan pendirian dari Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia (Menteri). Berdasarkan Peraturan Menteri Nomor 4 Tahun 2014 bahwa dokumen bukti penyertaan modal tidak wajib disampaikan kepada Menteri, melainkan hanya merupakan dokumen pendirian yang disimpan oleh Notaris. Pada kasus pendirian PT ABC, para pendiri belum melakukan penyetoran modal kedalam PT ABC namun surat pengesahan pendirian Perseroan telah diperoleh. Notaris X yang membuat akta pendirian PT ABC tidak menyampaikan kepada para Pendiri bahwa adanya kewajiban untuk menyetorkan modal sebelum PT ABC memperoleh status pengesahan dari Menteri. Penelitian tesis ini disusun berdasarkan penelitian yuridis normatif yang bersifat eksplanatoris. Hasil penelitian yaitu bahwa seorang Notaris, khususnya Notaris X memiliki peranan sebagai pejabat umum yang membuat akta pendirian Perseroan dan sebagai kuasa untuk mengajukan permohonan pendirian Perseroan kepada Menteri melalui Sistem Administrasi Badan Hukum. Bentuk tanggung jawab Notaris yaitu untuk memberikan penyuluhan dan memastikan kepada para Pendiri bahwa seluruh persyaratan pendirian Perseroan telah dipenuhi. Pada kasus PT ABC, Notaris X yang tidak menyampaikan kewajiban untuk melakukan penyetoran modal, dapat dikenakan sanksi indispliner dan ganti rugi kepada pihak yang dirugikan.

---

This thesis regarding of role and responsibility Notary related to paid up capital on the establishment Limited Liability Company (Company), case study the establishment of PT ABC. Founder of Company have an obligation to paid up the capital in Company before the Company received establishment legalization from Minister of Law and Human Rights (MoLHR). According to MoLHR Regulation Number 4 year 2014, stated that capital injection evidence is not required to submit to MoLHR, but it is only establishment document which saved in Notary. In PT ABC?s case, the founders has not inject the paid up capital but the establishment legalization from MoLHR has been received. This thesis is based on normative juridical research/legal research. The study states that as a Notary, especially Notary X has a role as a public official who made the deed of establishment and as an attorney to submit the Establishment form to the MoLHR through Company's Legal Entity Administration System. Responsibility of the Notary are to provide counseling and assure the founders has been fulfill all requirements regarding Company establishment. In the case of PT ABC, Notary X does not convey an obligation to inject capital, thus may be subject to disciplinary sanctions and compensation to the injured party."

"Direksi dan Komisaris merupakan organ dari Perseroan Terbatas yang memiliki tugas masing-masing sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan serta Anggaran Dasar dari Perseroan Terbatas. Direksi bertugas untuk mengurus sehari-hari kegiatan Perseroan sesuai dengan kegiatan usaha dari Perseroan, sedangkan Komisaris bertugas untuk mengawasi Direksi dalam kegiatan usaha Perseroan. Karena Direksi dan Komisaris merupakan wakil dari Perseroan maka jika terjadi kerugian terhadap Perseroan dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban. Jika Perseroan dinyatakan Pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga dan harta dari perseroan lebih sedikit dibanding dengan utangnya maka Direksi dan Komisaris dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban. Salah satu utangnya adalah utang pajak, Direksi dan Komisaris sebagai wakil dari Perseroan menurut Undang-Undang sebagai penanggung pajak. Penelitian ini akan menjawab beberapa permasalahan seputar; pertama, Bagaimana pertanggungjawaban Direksi dan Komisaris terhadap utang pajak Perseroan Terbatas yang pailit; kedua, Bagaimana pertanggungjawaban ideal Direksi dan Komisaris terhadap utang pajak Perseroan Terbatas yang pailit. Penelitian ini merupakan bentuk penelitian hukum normatif dengan data sekunder yang didukung dengan data primer serta dianlisis secara deskriptif-kualitatif. Pendekatan dalam penelitian ini ialah pendekatan konseptual dan perundang-undangan. Hasil dari penelitian ini ialah; pertama, Pertanggungjawaban Direksi dan Komisaris terhadap Utang Pajak Perseroan Terbatas yang pailit yaitu jika harta Perseroan tidak cukup untuk membayar utang pajak maka Direksi dan Komisaris sebagai penanggung pajak harus bertanggung jawab secara pribadi atau secara renteng; kedua, secara ideal menurut Doktrin Ulta Vires tersebut Direksi dan Komisaris dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban secara pribadi maupun secara renteng jika Komisaris melakukan kesalahan atau kelalaian. Mengatur batas-batas apa saja jika Direksi dan Komisaris bertanggung jawab terhadap utang pajak dari Perseroan Terbatas jika mengalami kepailitan merupakan saran dari penelitian ini.

---

Directors and Commissioners are organs of a Limited Liability Company which have their respective duties in accordance with laws and regulations and the Articles of Association of a Limited Liability Company. The Board of Directors is tasked with managing the day-to-day activities of the Company in accordance with the business activities of the Company, while the Commissioners are tasked with supervising the Directors in the Company's business activities. Because the Directors and Commissioners are representatives of the Company, if a loss occurs to the Company, they can be held accountable. If the company is declared bankrupt by the Commercial Court and the company's assets are less than its debts, the directors and commissioners can be held accountable. One of the debts is tax debt, the Directors and Commissioners as representatives of the Company according to the law as tax bearers. This research will answer several problems around; first, what are the responsibilities of the Directors and Commissioners for the tax debt of a bankrupt Limited Liability Company; second, what is the ideal accountability of the Board of Directors and Commissioners for the tax debt of a bankrupt Limited Liability Company. This research is a form of normative legal research with secondary data supported by primary data and analyzed descriptively-qualitatively. The approach in this study is a conceptual and statutory approach. The results of this study are; first, the accountability of the Directors and Commissioners for the Tax Debt of a bankrupt Limited Liability Company, namely if the Company's assets are insufficient to pay the tax debt, the Directors and Commissioners as tax bearers must be responsible individually or jointly; secondly, ideally according to the Ulta Vires Doctrine, the Board of Directors and Commissioners can be held accountable individually or jointly if the Commissioner commits a mistake or negligence. Setting limits if the Directors and Commissioners are responsible for the tax debt of a Limited Liability Company in the event of bankruptcy is a suggestion from this research."

"Penelitian ini menganalisis legalitas keanggotaan Perseroan Terbatas (PT) dalam koperasi, dengan fokus pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2113 K/Pid.Sus/2023. Menyelidiki kerangka regulasi yang mengatur koperasi dan PT di Indonesia, penelitian ini mengevaluasi pelanggaran operasional dalam praktik keanggotaan koperasi oleh KSP Indosurya. Tujuan penelitian mencakup pemeriksaan kerangka regulasi, analisis kasus KSP Indosurya, evaluasi kritis Putusan Mahkamah Agung, eksplorasi pembatasan keanggotaan PT, dan penyusunan rekomendasi. Dengan menggunakan metodologi penelitian hukum normatif, penelitian ini difokuskan pada analisis norma hukum yang tercantum dalam undang-undang. Kesimpulan menegaskan kerangka regulasi untuk koperasi dan PT, mengevaluasi Putusan Mahkamah Agung, dan menekankan pembatasan keanggotaan PT berdasarkan hukum koperasi, khususnya melarang PT menjadi anggota koperasi. Rekomendasi disajikan untuk memperkuat pengawasan pemerintah, memberlakukan sanksi pada koperasi yang tidak patuh, meningkatkan pemahaman masyarakat tentang operasi koperasi, meningkatkan pemahaman tentang Hukum Koperasi di kalangan penegak hukum, dan memastikan kepatuhan yang teliti terhadap regulasi koperasi selama penerbitan izin oleh Kementerian Koperasi dan Usaha Kecil Menengah.

---

This study analyzes the legality of Limited Liability Company (LLC) membership within cooperatives, with a focus on Supreme Court Decision Number 2113 K/Pid.Sus/2023. The research delves into the regulatory framework governing cooperatives and LLCs in Indonesia, assessing operational violations within cooperative membership practices by KSP Indosurya. Research objectives encompass an examination of the regulatory framework, an analysis of the KSP Indosurya case, a critical evaluation of the Supreme Court Decision, an exploration of LLC membership restrictions, and the formulation of recommendations. Employing a normative legal research methodology, the study concentrates on the analysis of legal norms outlined in laws. The conclusion underscores the regulatory framework for cooperatives and LLCs, evaluates the Supreme Court Decision, and emphasizes the LLC membership restriction grounded in cooperative law, specifically prohibiting LLCs from being members of cooperatives. Recommendations are presented to augment government oversight, enforce sanctions on non-compliant cooperatives, enhance public understanding of cooperative operations, elevate comprehension of Cooperative Law among legal enforcers, and ensure scrupulous compliance with cooperative regulations during permit issuance by the Ministry of Cooperatives and Small and Medium Enterprises. "

"Sistem Administrasi Badan Hukum (SABH) merupakan sistem online dalam pengajuan permohonan terkait badan hukum, dalam hal ini Perseroan Terbatas (Perseroan). Salah satu bentuk permohonan Perseroan melalui SABH adalah pendirian dan perubahan anggaran dasar Perseroan. Pihak yang dapat mengajukan permohonan melalui SABH adalah notaris. Sejak diundangkannya Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan HAM Republik Indonesia Nomor 4 Tahun 2014, notaris diberi wewenang dan tanggung jawab yang lebih luas dalam pengajuan pendirian dan perubahan anggaran dasar Perseroan, karena saat ini notaris berwenang untuk menerbitkan/mencetak surat keputusan terkait pendirian maupun perubahan anggaran dasar Perseroan. Oleh karena itu, penulis mengangkat hal tersebut menjadi pokok permasalahan dalam tesis ini. Penelitian yang digunakan dalam tesis ini adalah penelitian normatif. Berdasarkan penelitian tersebut, dapat disimpulkan bahwa peran notaris dalam pendirian dan perubahan anggaran dasar Perseroan sangat penting, yaitu untuk membuat akta pendirian dan/atau akta perubahan anggaran dasar Perseroan; mengajukan permohonan pendirian dan/atau perubahan anggaran dasar Perseroan kepada Menteri melalui SABH; serta melakukan penerbitan/pencetakan terkait surat keputusan pendirian dan/atau perubahan anggaran dasar Perseroan. Apabila notaris melakukan kesalahan input data Perseroan dalam SABH sehingga mengakibatkan ketidaksesuaian antara data fakta Perseroan dengan data pada surat keputusan yang diterbitkan/dicetak, maka notaris bertanggung jawab untuk mengajukan permohonan kepada Menteri untuk menerbitkan surat keputusan perbaikan.

---

Administrative System for Legal Entities (SABH) is a filing online system for the legal entities, in this case limited liability company (Company). One of the forms of filing online system of the Company is establishment and amendment of the articles of association of the Company. Notary is the only party who can apply to SABH. Since the enactment of the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights of Republic Indonesia Number 4 of 2014, notary has given broader authority and responsibility to publish the decree of the establishment and amendment of the articles of association of the Company. Therefore, the authors raise that issue in this thesis. This thesis uses normative research. Based on the research, it can be concluded that the role of the notary is important in the establishment and amendment of the article of association of the Company, especially for making the deed of incorporation and/or deed of the amendment of the articles of association of the Company; applying the establishment and/or amendment of the articles of association of the Company to the Minister through SABH; publishing the decree of the establishment and/or amendment of the articles of association of the Company. In the event of error in inputting the data to SABH, which results incompatibility between the factual data of the Company and data in the decree which published, then notary has the responsibility to applying to the Minister for publishing the revision of the decree."

"Pada perseroan terbatas, harta kekayaan suatu perseroan terbatas pertama kalinya berasal dari modal yang disetorkan oleh para pendirinya pada saat pendirian perseroan terbatas. Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas Nomor 40 Tahun 2007, penyetoran modal wajib dilakukan dan dipenuhi secara penuh sebelum perseroan terbatas mendapatkan pengesahan sebagai badan hukum dari Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia. Namun di dalam prateknya, banyak pendiri perseroan terbatas yang tidak memenuhi kewajiban tersebut. Bahkan dapat ditemui kasus di mana seluruh pendiri tidak ada yang melakukan penyetoran modal sebagaimana disebutkan dalam akta pendirian perseroan terbatas. Berlakunya Peraturan Pemerintah PP Nomor 29 Tahun 2016 Tentang Perubahan Modal Dasar Perseroan Terbatas kemudian menegaskan kembali wajibnya penyetoran modal tersebut. Maka perlu untuk ditelusuri apakah Peraturan Pemerintah tersebut dapat mengatasi praktek tidak disetorkannya modal dalam pendirian perseroan terbatas yang sering terjadi dan perlu juga untuk diketahui bagaimana akibat hukumnya terhadap perseroan terbatas apabila pemegang saham tidak memenuhi kewajiban penyetoran saham tersebut. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif dengan metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode kepustakaan dan lapangan, serta alat pengumpulan data berupa wawancara dan studi literatur. Hasil penelitian adalah ketentuan mengenai penyetoran modal yang diatur dalam PP Nomor 29 Tahun 2016 belum dapat mengatasi praktek tidak disetorkannya modal dalam pendirian perseroan terbatas yang sering terjadi karena tetap diandalkannya surat pernyataan telah menyetor modal sebagai bukti penyetoran yang sah. Akibat hukum dalam hal sebagian besar pemegang saham melakukan penyetoran modal namun terdapat pemegang saham yang tidak menyetorkan modal maka perseroan terbatas melalui Direksinya wajib secara aktif menagih penyetoran modal tersebut kepada pemegang saham yang bersangkutan sebagai bentuk hutang-piutang dan puncaknya perseroan terbatas dapat mengajukan gugatan secara perdata kepada pemegang saham yang belum menyetorkan sahamnya. Kemudian apabila pada saat mendirikan perseroan terbatas seluruh pendiri perseroan terbatas tidak ada yang melakukan penyetoran modal atas saham yang diambil bagiannya maka artinya terdapat cacat hukum dalam pendirian perseroan terbatas tersebut dan apabila kondisi tersebut merugikan pihak ketiga dan terbukti secara jelas di depan hakim maka pengadilan demi kepentingan umum dapat membubarkan perseroan terbatas tersebut.

---

In a limited liability company, the initial asset comes from paid up capital which fulfilled by all founders when the company first established. According to Limited Liability Company Law Number 40 Years 2007, the payment of subscribed capital or paid up capital should fully fulfilled before company obtain its ratification as legal entity from Ministry of Law and Human Rights. In practically however, numerous shareholders in facts have failed to fulfill this obligation. Even there is a case which none of shareholders of a company subscribe shares as it rsquo s mentioned in deed of the Company Establishment. The validity of Government Regulation Number 29 Years 2016 regarding The Amendment of Authorized Capital in Limited Liability Company has confirm more that the subscribed capital should fully paid by its shareholders. Therefore in this thesis it needs to be analyzed whether the Government Regulation can resolve the problem and what the effect to the company is if no shareholders fulfilled the paid up capital. The type of research used in this thesis is normative juridical research. This thesis adopted the method of normative legal research which using literature study and interviews as the tools in collecting data. After completed several researches, it was founded out that the Government Regulation Number 29 Years 2016 unable to resolve the current issue because as evidence of the capital payment, it is still using the statement letter of having pay the subscribed capital which in fact it cannot guarantee that the capital would really paid. The consequences if only some shareholders of a limited liability company fulfilled the paid up capital, the company through the Board of Directors shall actively collect the debt to the negligent shareholders and the company may file a lawsuit in civil to the negligent shareholders whereas if none of shareholders fulfilled the paid up capital then it means there is legal defect in the establishment of a limited liability company. When the condition detrimental to third parties and it can be strongly proved at the court, the court by the reason of public interest might dissolve the limited liability company."