Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Lembaga jaminan fidusia sudah sangat tua dan telah dikenal dalam hukum Romawi, lembaga ini dikenal dengan fiduciare eigendom overdracht. Lembaga ini timbul karena peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur gadai tidak dapat lagi mengakomodasi kepentingan masyarakat. Lembaga ini diakui oleh yurisprudensi Belanda tahun 1929. Dalam perkembangan yurisprudensi Indonesia dijumpai keputusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia tanggal 1 September 1971 yang isinya menyatakan bahwa hanya benda-benda yang bergerak saja yang dapat dijadikan objek jaminan fidusia. Melihat prospek perkembangan dari lembaga ini kemudia pada tahun 1999 secara khusus dibuatlah Undang-Undang Nomor 42 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Dalam Undang-Undang ini tidak hanya benda bergerak saja yang dapat dijadikan jaminan tetapi juga benda tak bergerak dengan perkecualian benda tersebut tidak dapat dijadikan jaminan dengan menggunakan Hak Tanggungan. Hal ini sebenarnya untuk mengantisipasi dari banyak orang yang mengalami kesulitan untuk mencari modal, dikarenakan tidak semua orang mempunyai benda yang bisa dijaminkan dengan lembaga jaminan yang lain selain fidusia.

---

ABSTRACT
The fiduciary warranty institutions already exist and has been known, in Rome Imperial at first, this isntitution known as fiduciare eigendom overdracht. This constitution came because of the constitution which role the forfeit cannot afford the society needs again. This isntitution already recognized in Netherlands jurisprudence in 1929. In their prosperity specially in Indonesia, in high court of justice on September 1, 1971 that only the movable things which can be the object of the fiduciary warrant. Seeing the prospect fiduciary waranty institutions, in 1999 as specific arranfe in number 42 constitution about fiducary warrant is not only arrange in movable things as a warranty but also for immovables with an exception, that things can?t be able to be guaranteed as using a task right. Actually to anticipated from many people which have a problem to have a money capital. Because not every person have a things to take a place as a guarantee thing in other place except the fiducias.;The fiduciary warranty institutions already exist and has been known, in Rome Imperial at first, this isntitution known as fiduciare eigendom overdracht. This constitution came because of the constitution which role the forfeit cannot afford the society needs again. This isntitution already recognized in Netherlands jurisprudence in 1929. In their prosperity specially in Indonesia, in high court of justice on September 1, 1971 that only the movable things which can be the object of the fiduciary warrant. Seeing the prospect fiduciary waranty institutions, in 1999 as specific arranfe in number 42 constitution about fiducary warrant is not only arrange in movable things as a warranty but also for immovables with an exception, that things can?t be able to be guaranteed as using a task right. Actually to anticipated from many people which have a problem to have a money capital. Because not every person have a things to take a place as a guarantee thing in other place except the fiducias.;The fiduciary warranty institutions already exist and has been known, in Rome Imperial at first, this isntitution known as fiduciare eigendom overdracht. This constitution came because of the constitution which role the forfeit cannot afford the society needs again. This isntitution already recognized in Netherlands jurisprudence in 1929. In their prosperity specially in Indonesia, in high court of justice on September 1, 1971 that only the movable things which can be the object of the fiduciary warrant. Seeing the prospect fiduciary waranty institutions, in 1999 as specific arranfe in number 42 constitution about fiducary warrant is not only arrange in movable things as a warranty but also for immovables with an exception, that things can?t be able to be guaranteed as using a task right. Actually to anticipated from many people which have a problem to have a money capital. Because not every person have a things to take a place as a guarantee thing in other place except the fiducias., The fiduciary warranty institutions already exist and has been known, in Rome Imperial at first, this isntitution known as fiduciare eigendom overdracht. This constitution came because of the constitution which role the forfeit cannot afford the society needs again. This isntitution already recognized in Netherlands jurisprudence in 1929. In their prosperity specially in Indonesia, in high court of justice on September 1, 1971 that only the movable things which can be the object of the fiduciary warrant. Seeing the prospect fiduciary waranty institutions, in 1999 as specific arranfe in number 42 constitution about fiducary warrant is not only arrange in movable things as a warranty but also for immovables with an exception, that things can’t be able to be guaranteed as using a task right. Actually to anticipated from many people which have a problem to have a money capital. Because not every person have a things to take a place as a guarantee thing in other place except the fiducias.]

Abstrak :
Pada dasarnya penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengetahui secara jelas bagaimanakah penerapan hukum terhadap penyalahgunaan kewenangan Notaris dalam menjalankan tugas dan kewajibannya. Dalam hal Notaris telah mengembalikan jaminan Sertipikat kepada debitur tanpa sepengetahuan dan ijin kreditur, padahal hutang debitur kepada kreditur belum lunas dan telah lewatnya waktu pengembalian sebagaimana yang tercantum dalam Surat Pengakuan Hutang. Penelitian ini juga dilakukan untuk mengetahui bagaimanakah perlindungan hukum terhadap pihak kreditur dalam akta dalam kasus tersebut yang merasa dirugikan oleh Notaris X yang melakukan wanprestasi atau cidera janji, karena akibat perbuatan yang dilakukan Notaris tersebut pihak kreditur mengalami kerugian immateril karena kreditur tidak dapat menggunakan Kuasa Jual yang telah diberikan kepadanya apabila debitur tidak dapat melunasi hutangnya, sedangkan pihak debitur dan Notaris tidak dijatuhi hukuman apapun oleh pengadilan akibat perbuatannya. Dalam kasus ini, Notaris telah menunjuk dirinya untuk menyimpan barang jaminan berupa Sertipikat tersebut, namun pada kenyataannya Notaris dirasa tidak bertanggung jawab karena telah mengembalikan jaminan Sertipikat tersebut kepada debitur tanpa sepengetahuan dan ijin kreditur padahal hutang debitur belum lunas kepada kreditur. Bentuk penelitian yang digunakan Penulis adalah metode penelitian kepustakaan atau penelitian hukum normatif, yakni menitikberatkan pada peraturan yang berlaku, referensi dan literatur serta pelaksanaan peraturan dalam prakteknya. Dari hasil penelitian ini, perbuatan yang dilanggar Notaris diantaranya tidak bertindak amanah, tidak jujur, telah memihak dan tidak menjaga kepentingan pihak yang terkait dalam perbuatan hukum. Dalam kasus ini Notaris tidak dapat bertanggung jawab atas apa yang telah dilakukannya, padahal telah menyebabkan kerugian bagi pihak lain. Oleh karena itu dapat disimpulkan, bahwa penerapan hukum terhadap penyalahgunaan kewenangan Notaris dalam menjalankan tugas dan kewajiban dan perlindungan hukum terhadap pihak yang dirugikan serta perilaku Notaris yang menunjuk dirinya untuk menyimpan barang jaminan berupa Sertipikat tanah dalam kasus ini belum sesuai dengan peraturan yang berlaku (UUJN, Kode Etik Notaris, KUHPerdata).

---

Basically, this research conducted to clearly understand how the application of laws against abuse authority notary in implementing their duties and obligations. In terms of notary has returned the security certificates to debtor without permission and the knowledge of a creditors, even though debt of the debtors to the creditors has not paid off and the passing time of return as specified in Statement Letter of Indebtness. This research was also conducted to determine how the legal protection against creditors in the deed in such cases who feel aggrieved by The Notary X who performs event of defaults, as a result of acts committed Notary of the lenders suffered losses immaterial because creditors can not use Power Selling the has been given to him when debtors are not can pay off her debt, while The Debtors and The Notary not been sentenced by a court due to his actions. In this case, The Notary has appointed himself to keep the collateral in the form of the Certificate, but in reality the Notary deemed not responsible for bringing back The Certificate of Guarantee to The Debtors without consent and the knowledge of creditors when a debtor has not paid off debts to creditors. Regarding the writing in this research using a form of normative legal research, which focuses on regulations, and literature references as well as the implementation of the regulations in practice. The results of this research, what violated notary are not act mandate, dishonest, had followed and did not keep the interests of a party involved in legal action. In this case, notary cannot be responsible for what he had done, which had been causing loss for other people. Therefore it can be concluded, that the implementation of the law against abuse of authority Notaries in performing its duties and obligations related legal protection for the injured party and the behavior of notaries who refers to himself to keep the collateral in the form of Certificate of land in this case was not in accordance with applicable regulations (UUJN, Notary Code of Conduct, Civil code).

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.