Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Jenis penelitian hukum yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif, Metode penclitian yang digunakan adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan (starute approach), pendekatan konscp dan pendekatan analitis kualitatif. Dalam melakukan analisa dan konstruksi, penelitian ini menggunakan data sekunder berupa bahan-bahan hukum primer, sckunder dan bahan non hukum. Selain itu juga dilakukan diskusi dan tanya jawab dengan pihak Perum JAMKRINDO untuk mendapatkan data primer yang digunakan mendukung data sekunder. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana gambaran umum sistem penjaminan kredit di beberapa negara termasuk Indonesia, peranan Pemerintah dalam sistem penjaminan kredit, dan aspek hukum pelaksanaan penjaminan kredit yang dilakukan oleh Perum JAMKRINDO. Sebagai hasil penelitian, disimpulkan bahwa di negara Indonesia, Jepang dan Korea sistem penjaminan kredit terus mengalami perkembangan, tujuannya untuk membantu UKM mengakses permodalan dari lembaga keuangan selaras dengan konsep negara kesejahteraan (welfare state)......This law reseanch is using nomative juridicinl research. The methods using in this rescarch is statute approach, conceptual approach, and a qualitative analysis. On analized and construction, this research used secondary data like primary law materials, secondary law materials, and non laws materials. In addition, to support to support secondary materials, researcher using primary materials which is obtaining from discussion and interview whith Perum JAMKRINDO party. The problem in this research is first, How the credit guarantee sytem look likes in a few country, second, How the government role in credit guarantee system, third, How the legal aspect at Perum JAMKRINDO business activities expecially in Credit Guarantee Activities. As the result of this research it can be concluded that in Indonesia, Japan and Korea credit guarantce system on developing process, the system mission is to belping SMEs getting modality from financial institution inheren with welfare state concept.

Abstrak :
Jual beli tanah merupakan perbuatan hukum yang sering dilakukan dalam kehidupan masyarakat Indonesia sehari-hari. Namun permasalahan muncul apabila tanah yang diperjual-belikan dibebankan dengan jaminan kredit kepada pihak ketiga. Hal tersebut dikarenakan jual beli tanah jaminan kredit memiliki prosedur yang berbeda dengan jual beli tanah pada umumnya, sehingga pelanggarannya dapat menimbulkan terjadinya akibat-akibat hukum yang tidak diinginkan dikemudian hari. Oleh karena itu, Penulis tertarik untuk melakukan penelitian terhadap Putusan Nomor 1982 K/Pdt/2018 untuk mengetahui akibat hukum yang terjadi serta pertanggungjawaban Notaris/PPAT terhadap pelanggaran prosedur jual beli tanah jaminan kredit tersebut. Metode penelitian yang digunakan penelitian yuridis-normatif dengan diagnostic-preskriptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa jual beli tanah jaminan kredit yang dilakukan tanpa pengecekan asli sertipikat objek jual beli oleh Notaris/PPAT, persetujuan dari kreditur terlebih dahulu, serta tidak adanya itikad baik Penjual mengakibatkan jual beli tanah jaminan kredit batal demi hukum. Akibatnya, Notaris/PPAT yang bersangkutan harus bertanggung jawab dengan menjanlankan sanksi adminsitratif yang dikenakan padanya berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan jabatannya seperti Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris dan peraturan perundang-undangan lainnya. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa apabila Notaris/PPAT hendak membuat akta terkait jual beli tanah jaminan kredit, sebaiknya memberi penyuluhan kepada kliennya untuk mendapatkan persetujuan tertulis dari pihak kreditur atas tanah jaminan kredit tersebut terlebih dahulu guna menghindari kemungkinan terjadinya sengketa dikemudian hari. Notaris/PPAT juga perlu memeriksa perjanjian kredit antara Penjual dengan kreditur untuk mengetahui syarat-syarat lain yang diperlukan agar Penjual dapat menjual tanah jaminan kreditnya kepada pihak ketiga ......Sales and purchase of land is a legal act that is often carried out in the daily life of Indonesian people. However, the problem arises if the land being traded encumbered with a credit guarantee to a third party. This is because the sale and purchase of land as a credit guarantee have a different procedure from the sales and purchase of land in general, therefore its violation can lead to unwanted legal consequences in the future. Therefore, the author is interested in researching Court Number 1982 K/Pdt/2018 to find out the legal consequences that occurred and the accountability of the Notary/PPAT for violations of the credit guarantee land sale and purchase procedure. The research of this thesis uses a normative juridical method, with diagnostic-prescriptive. The result of this research is that the sales and purchase of land as a credit guarantee land without checking the original certificate of the object of sale and purchase by the Notary / PPAT, prior approval from the creditor, and the absence of good faith from the seller resulted in the sale and purchase of land as credit guarantee becomes null and void by law. As a result, the concerned Notary / PPAT must be held accountable for his/her actions based on the statutory regulations regarding his/her position such as Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Amendments to Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning Notary Position and other statutory regulations. The result of this research suggests that if the Notary/PPAT wants to make a deed related to the sale and purchase of land as a credit guarantee, he/she should counsel his/her clients first to get written approval from the creditor of land as a credit guarantee land foremost, to avoid the possibility of a dispute in the future. The Notary/PPAT also needs to examine the credit agreement between the seller and the creditor to find out other requirements for the seller to sell his/her land which is encumbered with a credit guarantee to a third party.

Abstrak :
Pengusaha UMKM berkontribusi besar atas PDB perekonomian Indonesia sehingga apabila terjadi krisis perlu dilakukan intervensi pemerintah untuk mempercepat pemulihan pengusaha UMKM, salah satunya dengan penjaminan kredit. Peneliti melihat bahwa pemberian penjaminan kredit dapat merubah perilaku pengusaha UMKM terhadap utang dagang dan piutang dagang mereka. Hasil penelitian menjelaskan bahwa terdapat pengaruh signifikan pemberian penjaminan kredit terhadap jumlah kredit perbankan pengusaha UMKM, kemudian dari jumlah kredit perbankan diketahui bahwa tidak ada pengaruh signifikan kepada perilaku utang dagang dan terdapat pengaruh signifikan terhadap piutang dagang. Penambahan piutang dagang ini membawa dampak positif karena memberikan modal bagi pengusaha lain untuk bertumbuh. Di sisi lain, belum konklusifnya utang dagang membawa dampak negatif dikarenakan kredit perbankan bersifat komplementer yang berarti pengusaha UMKM dapat membebani pemasok untuk mendapatkan sumber pembiayaan. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga melihat bahwa dalam implementasi pemberian penjaminan kredit terdapat adverse selection dan moral hazard yang dilakukan oleh PT Jamkrindo selaku pemberi jaminan dan pengusaha UMKM selaku penerima manfaat jaminan. ......MSME entrepreneurs contribute greatly to the GDP of the Indonesian economy, so if a crisis occurs, government intervention is necessary to accelerate the recovery of MSME entrepreneurs, one of which is credit guarantees. Researchers see that providing credit guarantees can change the behavior of MSME entrepreneurs towards their trade payables and trade receivables. The results of the study explain that there is a significant effect of providing credit guarantees on the amount of bank credit for MSME entrepreneurs, then from the amount of bank credit it is known that there is no significant effect on the behavior of trade payables and there is a significant effect on trade receivables. The addition of trade receivables has a positive impact because it provides capital for other entrepreneurs to grow. On the other hand, the inconclusive trade debt has a negative impact because banking credit is complementary, which means that MSME entrepreneurs can burden suppliers to obtain sources of financing. In addition, this study also sees that in the implementation of the provision of credit guarantees has an adverse selection and moral hazard carried out by PT Jamkrindo as the guarantee provider and MSME entrepreneurs as the beneficiaries of the guarantee.

Abstrak :
Tipe penelitian hukum yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif yang menghasilkan kajian preskriptif. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konsep dan pendekatan analitis. Dalam teknik pengumpulan data, peneliti menggunakan data sekunder dengan melakukan studi kepustakaan terhadap bahan-bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Selain itu, dilakukan wawancara dengan pihak Perum Jamkrindo dan Bank Niaga untuk mendapatkan data primer yang digunakan untuk mendukung data sekunder. Data yang ada dianalisis secara kualitatif. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah dasar pertimbangan hukum masih diperlukan adanya penjaminan kredit melalui Perum Jamrindo, padahal KPRI-Gotong Royong telah menjaminkan piutangnya secara fidusia kepada Bank Niaga. Selanjutnya, akibat hukum apa yang akan timbul atas penyelesaian kredit macet KPRI-Gotong Royong pada Bank Niaga dengan adanya penjaminan kredit melalui Perum Jamkrindo. Persoalan lainnya adalah apakah perbedaan, keunggulan dan kelemahan antara penjaminan kredit dan asuransi kredit. Sebagai hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa penjaminan kredit melalui Perum Jamkrindo diperlukan karena jaminan piutang secara fidusia dirasakan kurang memadai dengan terdapatnya kelemahan dalam melakukan eksekusi sebagaimana terdapat dalam Akta Jaminan Fidusia. Pertimbangan hukum lainnya adalah dilepaskannya hak istimewa Perum Jamkrindo berdasarkan Pasal 1831 dan 1832 KUHPerdata. Mengacu pada hal di atas, dengan adanya penjaminan kredit melalui Perum Jamkrindo, KPRI-Gotong Royong telah memenuhi persyaratan teknis perkreditan sehingga memperoleh kredit yang bersangkutan. Sementara itu, Bank Niaga pun merasa aman atas kredit yang disalurkannya kepada KPRI-Gotong Royong karena telah mendapatkan penjaminan kredit dari Perum Jamkrindo. Dengan adanya penjaminan kredit, ketika terjadi kredit macet, Perum Jamkrindo sebagai Penjamin wajib membayar klaim sebesar 75% dari kerugian yang diderita kepada Bank Niaga sebagai Penerima Jaminan. Atas pembayaran klaim tersebut, Penjamin memiliki hak subrogasi yang besarnya sebanding dengan besarnya klaim yang dibayar. Dalam hal ini, Penjamin menggantikan hak-hak Bank Niaga atas KPRI-Gotong Royong. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut, terdapat beberapa keunggulan, kelemahan dan perbedaan antara penjaminan kredit dan asuransi kredit. Berdasarkan apa yang diuraikan di atas, maka tujuan dari dilakukannya penelitian ini adalah membantu UMKMK dalam mengakses kredit perbankan dengan memanfaatkan penjaminan kredit. ......This law research is using normative juridical as a type of law research which produces prescriptive studied. The methods using in this research is statute approach, conceptual approach, and analytical approach. In data collecting technique, the researcher is using secondary data which is obtained by library research toward primary law material s, secondary law materials, and tertiary law materials. In addition, to support the secondary materials, researcher is using primary materials which is obtained from the interview with Perum Jamkrindo party and Niaga Bank. Furthermore, the data are analyzed in a qualitative manner. The problem in this research is the law consideration why it’s required a guarantee through Perum Jamkrindo whereas KPRI-Gotong Royong has guarantied its account receivable under fiducia to Bank Niaga. The second problem is what legal cause that will arise on the credit settlement between KPRI-Gotong Royong and Niaga Bank with the credit guarantee from Perum Jamkrindo. The other problem is what the contrast, advantages and disadvantages between credit guarantee and credit insurance. As the result of this research it can be concluded that credit guarantee through Perum Jamkrindo is needed because of the account receivable guarantee which is only under fiducia is insufficient refer to the execution weakness that is stated in Akta Jaminan Fidusia. The other law consideration is based on the releasing of Perum Jamkrindo’s privilege as stated in Article 1831 and 1832 Code Civil. According to those above, with the credit guarantee from Perum Jamkrindo, KPRI-Gotong Royong has obtained all technical loan requirements and lead to a result that it can have the loan mentioned. Meanwhile, Niaga Bank has the security over the loan which it is provided to KPRI-Gotong Royong as the result of the credit guarantee from Perum Jamkrindo. The credit guarantee offer a 75% payable over the claim of the detriment that suffered by Niaga Bank as the party who receives the guarantee. Over the claim payment, guarantor receives the subrogation right which equal with the claim payment. According to that, the guarantor replaces the right of Niaga Bank and the party who receives the guarantee over KPRI-Gotong Royong. So there are some contrast, advantages, disadvantages between the credit guarantee and credit insurance. Based on those above, the purpose of this research is helping UMKMK gain the banking loan which is using credit guarantee.

Abstrak :
Tinggi rendahnya tingkat default risk penjaminan pembiayaan syariah usaha kecil menengah dan koperasi (UKMK) sangat berpengaruh terhadap besaran imbal jasa penjaminan yang ditetapkan untuk nasabah penjaminan syariah ini. Imbal jasa penjaminan dibentuk dari komponen default risk dan biaya-biaya perolehan bisnis yang dikeluarkan lembaga penjamin kredit (LPK). Tingkat kredit macet (default risk) memberikan gambaran kualitas risiko poriofolio kredit yang dijaminkan. Oleh karena itu untuk menentukan imbal jasa penjaminan, terlebih dahulu harus mengetahui tingkat default risk dari kredit yang di-cover. Saat ini, Perum Sarana hanya mengambil rumusan imbal jasa dari penjaminan kredit konvensionalnya Karenanya diperlukan suatu evaluasi untuk mengetahui kebenaran kebijakan penetapan imbal jasa tersebut bagi penjaminan pembiayaan syariah UKMK. Hasil penelitian default risk dengan pendekatan CreditRisk+ membuktikan bahwa imbal jasa yang ditetapkan Perum Sarana tidak sebanding dengan kualitas portofolio penjaminan pembiayaan syariah UKMK. imbal jasa basil penelitian menunjukkan besaran yang jauh lebih kecil dari imbal jasa yang ditetapkan Perum Sarana.

---

Fluctuation of the rating of default risk on sharia financing guarantee for cooperative, small and medium enterprises (CSME) is really influenced by the amount of the guarantee service fee which is established for the customers of sharia financing. The service fee is composed by component of default risk and acquisition expenses which are spent by Credit Guarantee Corporation (CGC). Grading of default risk describes of the quality of credit guarantee portfolio. Therefore, for determining the service fee of guarantee, we must know the grading of the default risk first and also the credit being covered. This moment, Pet-urn Sarana is using the formulation of the service fee based on its conventional credit guarantee. Therefore, an evaluation to find out the right policy of the service fee is really needed. The outcome is that using default risk with CreditRisk+ approach demonstrates that service fee which is established by Perum Sarana is not appeal with the quality of the sharia financing guarantee's portfolio for CSME. The service fee of guarantee which is proved by this research is far below the service fee by which is established by Perum Sarana.

Abstrak :
[Perjanjian kerjasama tentang penanggungan utang ini merupakan dasar dari penjaminan pemberian kredit yang diberikan oleh Bank Rakyat Indonesia dan juga menjadi dasar bagi Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia agar dapat bertindak sebagai penanggung dalam penjaminan kredit yang diberikan oleh Bank rakyat Indonesia. Analisis ini akan dilakukan dengan menggunakan ketentuan penanggungan utang dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, dimana akan dilihat mengenai keberlakuan dari ketentuan penanggungan utang dalam perjanjian kerjasama penanggungan utang antara Bank Rakyat Indonesia dengan Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Dalam Buku III KUHPerdata memiliki asas kebebasan berkontrak, dimana dengan adanya asas ini maka para pihak bebas menentukan isi dari perjanjian yang ingin dibuatnya selama tidak bertentangan dengan hukum, kepatutan dan norma yang berlaku. Namun, tidak banyak yang mengetahui keberadaan perjanjian kerjasama penjaminan kredit sehingga tidak diketahui mengenai isi dari perjanjian tersebut telah sesuai atau tidak bertentangan dengan ketentuan dalam KUHPerdata dan Peraturan lain yang berlaku. Adapun terdapat perbedaan mendasar antara perjanjian kerjasama penanggungan utang dengan ketentuan dalam KUHPerdata yaitu pada pihak yang menjadi penanggung hanya boleh Perusahaan Penjaminan yang telah membuat MoU dengan Kementerian Keuangan seperti Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Dengan demikian analisis ini diperlukan agar dapat menjadi acuan hukum bagi usaha-usaha yang hendak melakukan peminjaman kredit melalui penjaminan pemberian kredit, sehingga mereka mengetahui ketentuan yang berlaku. ......A cooperation agreement of debt guarantee is the basis of the guarantee credit granted by Bank Rakyat Indonesia and also the basis for Perum Jaminan kredit Indonesia in order to act as a guarantor in a debt guarantee given by Bank Rakyat Indonesia. This analysis will be done using debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law, which will be seen on the enforceability of the debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law in the agreement about the guarantee of debt between Bank Rakyat Indonesia with Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. In Book III of the Civil Code, which has the principle of freedom of contract, where the presence of this principle made the parties are free to determine the contents of the agreements as long as its content did not violate the law, propriety and norms. However, not many are aware of the existence of credit guarantee cooperation agreement, which is the basis of guaranteed debt lending, is not known about the contents of the agreement and of course so many people does not know if the content of its agreement match with the provisions of the Civil Code and other applicable regulation. As there is a fundamental difference between debt guarantee agreement and debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Civil Code, which is the parties that allowed to be the guarantor are the Company that has made a MoU agreement with the Ministry of Finance such as Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Thus this analysis is required in order to become the legal reference for businesses that want to borrow credit through the provision of credit guarantees, so that they know the provisions in force.;A cooperation agreement of debt guarantee is the basis of the guarantee credit granted by Bank Rakyat Indonesia and also the basis for Perum Jaminan kredit Indonesia in order to act as a guarantor in a debt guarantee given by Bank Rakyat Indonesia. This analysis will be done using debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law, which will be seen on the enforceability of the debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law in the agreement about the guarantee of debt between Bank Rakyat Indonesia with Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. In Book III of the Civil Code, which has the principle of freedom of contract, where the presence of this principle made the parties are free to determine the contents of the agreements as long as its content did not violate the law, propriety and norms. However, not many are aware of the existence of credit guarantee cooperation agreement, which is the basis of guaranteed debt lending, is not known about the contents of the agreement and of course so many people does not know if the content of its agreement match with the provisions of the Civil Code and other applicable regulation. As there is a fundamental difference between debt guarantee agreement and debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Civil Code, which is the parties that allowed to be the guarantor are the Company that has made a MoU agreement with the Ministry of Finance such as Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Thus this analysis is required in order to become the legal reference for businesses that want to borrow credit through the provision of credit guarantees, so that they know the provisions in force., A cooperation agreement of debt guarantee is the basis of the guarantee credit granted by Bank Rakyat Indonesia and also the basis for Perum Jaminan kredit Indonesia in order to act as a guarantor in a debt guarantee given by Bank Rakyat Indonesia. This analysis will be done using debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law, which will be seen on the enforceability of the debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Code of Civil Law in the agreement about the guarantee of debt between Bank Rakyat Indonesia with Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. In Book III of the Civil Code, which has the principle of freedom of contract, where the presence of this principle made the parties are free to determine the contents of the agreements as long as its content did not violate the law, propriety and norms. However, not many are aware of the existence of credit guarantee cooperation agreement, which is the basis of guaranteed debt lending, is not known about the contents of the agreement and of course so many people does not know if the content of its agreement match with the provisions of the Civil Code and other applicable regulation. As there is a fundamental difference between debt guarantee agreement and debt guarantee provisions in the Indonesian Civil Code, which is the parties that allowed to be the guarantor are the Company that has made a MoU agreement with the Ministry of Finance such as Perum Jaminan Kredit Indonesia. Thus this analysis is required in order to become the legal reference for businesses that want to borrow credit through the provision of credit guarantees, so that they know the provisions in force.]

Abstrak :
Laporan karya akhir ini dibuat untuk menganalisis penerapan PSAK 71 dalam menghitung Cadangan Kerugian Kredit Ekspektasian (CKKE). Objek penelitiannya adalah Piutang IJP KUR di PT Jamkrindo sebagai perusahaan penjaminan. Analisis dilakukan dengan menganalisis Prosedur CKKE perusahaan, dibandingkan dengan skema penjaminan berdasarkan peraturan pemerintah. Berdasarkan hasil pengkajian, PT Jamkrindo telah menerapkan Prosedur CKKE berdasarkan PSAK 71 terhadap Piutang IJP KUR atas KUR Gen 1 secara individual (Pemerintah) dan KUR Gen 2 secara kolektif (Mitra Penyalur KUR). Namun penentuan bobot Cash Shortfall KUR Gen 1 dan pemilihan metode CKKE KUR Gen 2 belum mencerminkan kondisi yang ada pada perusahaan. ......This final report is made to analyze the implementation of PSAK 71 in calculating Expected Credit Loss (ECL). The research object is IJP KUR Receivables in PT Jamkrindo as a guarantee company. The analysis was conducted by analyzing the company's ECL Procedures, compared to the guarantee scheme based on government regulations. The conclusion is that PT Jamkrindo has applied ECL Procedures based on PSAK 71 against IJP KUR Receivables on KUR Gen 1 individually (Government) and KUR Gen 2 collectively (KUR Channeling Partners). However, the determination of the KUR Gen 1 Cash Shortfall and the selection of the CKKE KUR Gen 2 method do not reflect the existing conditions in the company.