Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang kedudukan sita umum pailit terhadap sita pidana dan jalan keluar atas objek sita umum pailit yang telah dieksekusi lelang yang di kemudian hari diketahui sebagai hasil tindak pidana serta akibat hukum bagi pembeli dalam lelang harta pailit. Dalam praktiknya, terdapat tumpang tindih antara sita umum pailit dengan sita pidana. Apabila harta yang berada di dalam proses pailit dan dilakukan sita umum disita oleh penyidik, maka harta tersebut tidak dapat dilakukan pemberesan dan dibagikan kepada para krediturnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian bagi kreditur. Namun, apabila tidak dilakukan penyitaan oleh penyidik, maka penyidik akan mengalami kesulitan dalam melakukan penyidikan, penuntutan, dan pengajuan perkara ke pengadilan karena harta tersebut merupakan barang bukti. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan tipologi deskriptif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa pelaksanaan sita pidana dalam rangka kepentingan publik harus didahulukan dan dalam hal objek sita umum pailit telah dilelang namun di kemudian hari diketahui sebagai hasil dari tindak pidana, maka pembeli lelang yang beriktikad baik harus dilindungi kedudukannya.

---

This thesis discusses the legal standing of general bankruptcy confiscation against criminal confiscation and the settlement of the object of general bankruptcy confiscation that has been auctioned which in the future time is known as the proceeds of crime and the legal effects for buyers in the auction of bankrupt treasures. In practice, there is an overlap between general bankruptcy confiscation against criminal confiscation. If the property in the process of bankruptcy and general bankruptcy confiscation is re confiscated by the criminal investigator, then the property can not be settled and distributed to the creditors. But if there is no criminal confiscation, the investigator will have difficulty in conducting an investigation, prosecution, and court proceedings as the property is evidence. This research is a qualitative research with descriptive typology. The result of this research is that the execution of criminal confiscation in the framework of the public interest must take precedence and if the object of general bankruptcy confiscation has been auctioned but later known as the proceeds of crime, then the buyer with good faith must be protected."

"[Tesis ini bertujuan untuk melakukan analisa terhadap perlindungan hukum Pihak Ketiga akibat putusan pailit yang dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, dimana hal tersebut dibahas salah satunya di penjelasan Pasal 3 ayat (1) UUKPKPU tentang “hal lain-lain”. Tesis ini menggunakan metode analisa terhadap gugatan Pihak Ketiga kepada Kurator dengan berbagai dasar gugatan, yang meliputi : Pertama (1) Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Panca Wiratama Sakti Tbk (Dalam Pailit) mengenai sewa menyewa tanah. Kedua (2) Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Mitra Safir Sejahtera (Dalam Pailit), mengenai sertifikat tanah. Ketiga (3), Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Bendi Oetama Raya (Dalam Pailit), mengenai kepemilikan tanah yang telah dijaminkan Hak Tanggungan. Keempat (4), Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Sinar Central Rejeki (Dalam Pailit), mengenai sebagian tanah dan bangunan. Kelima (5), Pihak Ketiga dalam Kasus kepailitan PT Surabaya Agung Industri Pulp & Kertas (Dalam Pailit), mengenai jual beli barang yang dilakukan oleh Debitor Pailit. Hasil penelitian diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang ternyata belum mampu menyelesaikan permasalahan kepailitan karena masih ada pihak yang mengajukan gugatan atas harta pailit Debitor Pailit. Hak dan kewajiban Pihak Ketiga yang diatur diluar maupun didalam UUKPKPU belum cukup melindungi segala hak-haknya, terlebih dalam kasus kepailitan karena banyaknya dampak yang terjadi setelah Debitor dinyatakan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga. Hal ini tidak cukup menyelesaikan permasalahan mengenai adanya perikatan yang dilakukan Pihak Ketiga dan Debitor Pailit sehingga diperlukannya peraturan perundang-undangan yang mendukung Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang yang mana bertujuan untuk pemberesan harta pailit Debitor Pailit;This Research purpose is to analyze legal protection for Third Party as a consequence of insolvency verdict on Statute number 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law (“UUKPKPU”), whereas it was covered on explanation of clause 3 paragraph (1) regarding “Other matters”. This research use analyzing method on several Third Party lawsuit to the Curator with variety of basis for the lawsuit, that includes : First (1) Third Party Vs PT Panca Wiratama Sakti Tbk (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land lease. Second (2) Third Party Vs PT Mitra Safir Sejahtera (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land sertificate. Third (3) Third Party Vs PT Bendi Oetama Raya (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land and building ownership that has being mortage. Fourth (4) Third Party Vs PT Sinar Central Rejeki (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding partial land and building ownership. Fifth (5), Third Party Vs PT Surabaya Agung Industri Pulp and Kertas (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding commodity selling by Bankrupt Debtor. Result of the research shows that Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law still unable to solve the problem of bankruptcy, because there are parties that still filed lawsuit against bankruptcy assets of Bankrupt Debtors. Third Parties rights and obligation that set on Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law are not sufficient enough to protect their rights, especially in the Bankruptcy case impact will be perceived after the debtor decided bankrupt by the commercial court. It is not enough solve the problems concerning of Third Party agreement with the Bankrupt Debtors and thus the need for legislation that supports Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law on settlement of bankruptcy assets Bankrupt Debtor., This Research purpose is to analyze legal protection for Third Party as a consequence of insolvency verdict on Statute number 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law (“UUKPKPU”), whereas it was covered on explanation of clause 3 paragraph (1) regarding “Other matters”. This research use analyzing method on several Third Party lawsuit to the Curator with variety of basis for the lawsuit, that includes : First (1) Third Party Vs PT Panca Wiratama Sakti Tbk (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land lease. Second (2) Third Party Vs PT Mitra Safir Sejahtera (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land sertificate. Third (3) Third Party Vs PT Bendi Oetama Raya (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding land and building ownership that has being mortage. Fourth (4) Third Party Vs PT Sinar Central Rejeki (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding partial land and building ownership. Fifth (5), Third Party Vs PT Surabaya Agung Industri Pulp and Kertas (Bankrupt) Bankruptcy case, regarding commodity selling by Bankrupt Debtor. Result of the research shows that Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law still unable to solve the problem of bankruptcy, because there are parties that still filed lawsuit against bankruptcy assets of Bankrupt Debtors. Third Parties rights and obligation that set on Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law are not sufficient enough to protect their rights, especially in the Bankruptcy case impact will be perceived after the debtor decided bankrupt by the commercial court. It is not enough solve the problems concerning of Third Party agreement with the Bankrupt Debtors and thus the need for legislation that supports Statute No 37 year 2004 on Indonesia Bankruptcy Law on settlement of bankruptcy assets Bankrupt Debtor.]"

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai eksekusi jaminan fidusia pada saat debitur pailit. Pada skripsi ini akan dibahas mengenai dua hal. Pertama, pembahasan mengenai kedudukan jaminan fidusia sebagai jaminan umum. Kedua pembahasan mengenai ketepatan Mahkamah Agung dalam mengambil keputusan yang berbeda dengan Pengadilan Niaga dalam putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 306 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 jo. Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat Nomor 01/Pailit Lain Lain/ 2009/ PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. Kasus yang digunakan dalam pembahasan ini merupakan kasus eksekusi jaminan fidusia yang dilakukan oleh kreditur pemegang jaminan fidusia yaitu PT Bank Mega Tbk., pada saat debitur , yaitu PT Tripanca Group telah dinyatakan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan perbandingan dan pendekatan kasus. Penelitian ini menyumpulkan bahwa jaminan fidusia bukan merupakan jaminan umum, melainkan merupakan jaminan khusus selama benda yang merupakan objek jaminan fidusia telah didaftarkan ke Kantor Pendaftaran Fidusia dan bahwa putusan Mahkamah Agung telah tepat untuk membatalkan putusan Pengadilan Niaga yang memasukkan objek jaminan fidusia ke dalam boedel pailit.

---

This thesis discusses the execution of object of fiduciary guarantee on bankrupted debtor. This thesis focuses mainly on two issues. First, a discussion of the position of fiduciary guarantee as a general guarantee. Second, a discussion upon the accuracy of the Supreme Court to give a verdict contrary to the verdict given by the Commercial Court on Supreme Court Decision No. 306 K/Pdt.Sus/2010 jo. Comercial Court Decision No. 01/Pailit lain lain/2009/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. The case as used in this thesis is a case concerning the execution of an object of a fiduciary guarantee done by a creditor who received a fiduciary guarantee, which is PT Bank Mega Tbk., after a debtor, which is PT Tripanca Group, which has been declared bankrupt by the Commercial Court. This research is a normative juridical research which focuses its approach on the legislation, comparative approach and case study. This research concludes that a fiduciary guarantee is not a general guarantee, but it is a special guarantee as long as the object of the fiduciary guarantee has been listed in the Fiduciary Registration Office and that the Supreme Court decision had given the appropriate verdict on nullifying the Commercial Court Decision that included the object of the fiduciary guarantee as a bankruptcy asset"

"Kepailitan mempunyai akibat bagi seluruh kreditur, tidak terkecuali Kreditrur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia. Pengembalian uang Debitur kepada Kreditur dalam hal Debitur dinyatakan Pailit akan sangat tergantng pada kedudukan dari kreditur tersebut. Kedudukan Kreditur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia adalah sebagai Kreditur Preferen. Hak ini tidak hapus karena adanya Kepailitan atau likuidasi Debitur Pemberi Jaminan Fidusia. Kreditur Preferen (Secured Creditors) dalam Kepailitan biasanya disebut Kreditur Separatis. Kreditur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia sebagai Kreditur Separatis sangat berkepentingan agar tetap dapat mengeksekusi haknya seolah-oleh tidak terjadi Kepailitan.

---

Bankrupt has effect to all creditors, neither nor creditor fich receive guarantee fiducia. The debt returning of debtor to creditor, in the casa of debtor are nonis as bangkrupt, it's depend on the position of creditor itself. The position of creditors which receives gauarantee fiducia is as secure creditor, their rights are not vanished, because there are bangkrupting and liquidation of debtor guarantee fiducia receiver. Secure creditors are usually called as saparatish creditors. Debtor guarantee fiducia receiving as separatish creditors fas responsible in other to can still execute as if as there are not bangkrupting."

"Penulisan skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan data sekunder sebagai sumber datanya. Adapun yang menjadi pokok permasalahan dalam penulisan ini adalah upaya hukum yang dapat diajukan terhadap penetapan imbalan jasa kurator dan aturan yang dipakai untuk menentukan besaran imbalan jasa kurator pada putusan No. 48PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2013. Bahwa penetapan imbalan jasa kurator merupakan permohonan secara sepihak, tidak ada pihak lawan maka untuk pihak yang dirugikan (PT.Telkomsel) dapat melakukan pembatalan terhadap penetapan tersebut ke Mahkamah Agung. Dan untuk aturan imbalan jasa kurator yang diberlakukan dalam perkara ini yaitu tetap pada peraturan yang lama karena kepailitan PT. Telkomsel telah berakhir sebelum adanya peraturan yang baru.

---

This thesis was using a normative juridical approach as its research method with secondary data as the primary data source. As for the subject matter in writing this thesis was a remedy which may be brought against the determination of costs and compensation for services of curator and the prevailing laws and regulations used to determine such costs and compensation based on the Decision of the Supreme Court of (“Decision”). Whereas, the determination of such costs and compensation was a plea in a unilateral manner, where none of the parties opposed. Thus, the inflicted loss party (PT Telkomsel) may file cancellation against the Decision. The laws and regulations which prevail in this case were the preceding laws and regulations for the reason that this case has ended before the presence of the new regulation."

"Pembahasan dalam skripsi ini adalah pemberesan harta pailit melalui pelaksanaan lelang oleh kantor lelang, dengan studi kasus PT Interkon Kebon Jeruk. Dalam proses kepailitan apabila debitor dinyatakan pailit, maka kurator akan melakukan pengurusan dan pemberesan harta pailit. Pasal 185 Undang-Undang Kepailitan mengintrodusir dua cara penjualan aset-aset debitur pailit, yaitu dengan cara melakukan penjualan di muka umum atau melakukan penjualan di bawah tangan dengan izin hakim pengawas. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan tipologi penelitian deskriptif. Dalam penelitian ini, yang menjadi pokok permasalahan adalah bagaimana prosedur dan persyaratan lelang eksekusi harta pailit pada Kantor Pelayanan Kekayaan Negara dan Lelang dan apakah persyaratan lelang eksekusi harta pailit PT Interkon Kebon Jeruk telah terpenuhi, sehingga dapat dilakukan pelaksanaan lelang oleh Kantor Pelayanan Kekayaan Negara dan Lelang. Pada akhirnya, peneliti memperoleh kesimpulan bahwa lelang eksekusi harta pailit ada tiga tahap yang harus dijalankan, yaitu tahap persiapan lelang, tahap pelaksanaan lelang, dan tahap pasca lelang. Persyaratan bersifat khusus lelang eksekusi harta pailit tidak dapat dipenuhi oleh Kurator dalam pemberesan harta pailit PT Interkon Kebon Jeruk, sehingga tidak dapat memenuhi legalitas formal subjek dan objek lelang yang pada akhirnya tidak dapat dilakukan pelaksanaan lelang oleh Kantor Pelayanan Kekayaan Negara dan Lelang Jakarta I.

---

This undergraduate thesis discusses the settlement of bankruptcy assets through auction by the auction office, with the case of PT Interkon Kebon Jeruk used as the case study. In bankruptcy proceedings, if the Debitor has been declared bankrupt, the Curator shall perform the management and settlement of the bankruptcy assets. Article 185 of Law on Bankruptcy introduces two ways of selling the asset of bankrupt Debitor, which is through selling in public and selling in private upon the permission of the Supervisory Judge. This research is a normative research with descriptive type of research typology. In this research, the issue of concern is how is the procedure and requirements of execution auction of bankruptcy assets on the State Assets and Auction Service Office, and whether those requirements of execution auction of bankruptcy assets of PT Interkon kebon Jeruk are fulfilled or not so the implementation of auction by the State Assets and Auction Service Office can be done. In the end, the researcher came to the conclusion that on the execution auction of bankruptcy assets, there are three steps that must be executed. The three steps are auction preparation, implementation of auction, and post-auction. The Curator in the process of settlement of PT Interkon Kebon Jeruk?s bankruptcy assets cannot fulfill the special requirements of execution auction of bankruptcy assets, so the formal legality of subject and object of auction cannot be met, which in the end, the State Assets and Auction Service Office Jakarta I cannot implement the auction."