Hukum kepailitan di Indonesia diatur dalam UU No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Keberlakuan UU KPKPU berpegang pada beberapa asas, diantaranya asas keseimbangan dan kelangsungan usaha. Namun demikian dalam penerapannya, UU KPKPU kerap tidak memenuhi asas-asas tersebut. Hal ini dikarenakan adanya penekanan pada pemenuhan hak-hak kreditor berupa penyelesaian utang yang kerap mengabaikan hak-hak debitor. Proses pemberesan dalam kepailitan seringkali meninggalkan debitor dalam kondisi finansial yang buruk, dimana sisa utang yang tidak terbayarkan selama proses kepailitan tetap akan mengikat harta debitor pasca kepailitan berakhir. Hal ini merugikan debitor, khususnya debitor perorangan dan UMKM karena akan berpengaruh pada kelangsungan hidup debitor pasca kepailitan. Untuk itu, diperlukan penerapan financial fresh start yang menekankan pada kepulihan kondisi finansial debitor pasca kepailitan melalui pembebasan sisa utang yang belum terbayarkan. Dengan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, skripsi ini menjabarkan penerapan financial fresh start di dua negara (Amerika Serikat dan Australia), dan membandingkan keduanya untuk menemukan kelebihan dan kekurangan dalam masing-masing bentuk penerapan. Penulis juga menjabarkan kemungkinan penerapan financial fresh start di Indonesia berkaitan dengan konsep pengakhiran perikatan berupa pembebasan utang dalam KUHPerdata. Penulis berkesimpulan bentuk penerapan financial fresh start dalam United States Code Title 11 (Bankruptcy) paling tepat untuk mengatasi permasalahan debitor perorangan dan UMKM, karena memberikan pilihan prosedur penyelesaian utang yang beragam. Fasilitas debt discharge dapat diterima oleh debitor UMKM berbentuk badan hukum di Amerika Serikat, namun tidak di Australia. Amerika Serikat juga memberikan pengecualian tertentu terhadap harta debitor yang dijadikan harta pailit untuk mendukung kelangsungan usaha selama proses penyelesaian utang.

Kata Kunci: Amerika Serikat, Australia, debitor, debt discharge, financial fresh start, perorangan, UMKM, UU KPKPU.

Bankruptcy in Indonesia is regulated under Law Number 37 Year 2004 about Bankruptcy and Debt Payment Rescheduling. The law rely its implementation on some principles, which among those are; (a) balance, and (b) business continuity. Nevertheless, these principles are not always fulfilled by the law in its application. The bankruptcy law does not regard the debtors right as much as the creditors, as reflected on the purposes of the law which stated that the bankruptcy law is made mainly to fulfill debt payment instead of relieving debtors financial condition. Bankruptcy process in Indonesia often resulted in debtors financial adversity, leaving their property remain binded by unpaid debts. This condition is harmful to debtors, especially to individual and small business debtors, as it will affect their survival after bankrupted. Hence, it is important for Bankruptcy Law in Indonesia to adopt financial fresh start into its regulation. Financial fresh start, as stated in U.S Bankruptcy Code and Australian Bankruptcy Act 1966, emphasizes on the recovery of debtors financial condition after bankrupted by discharging unpaid debts. By using judicial normative research method, this thesis describes the implementation of financial fresh start in United States and Australia, as well as its comparation. The thesis also comprehend financial fresh start implementation in Indonesia with the similar concept of debt exemption as stated in Indonesian Civil Code. The thesis conclude that the implementation in United States is able to solve bankruptcy problem suffered by individual and small business debtors in Indonesia.