Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Tesis ini membahas mengenai pembebanan tanggung jawab hukum kepada Manajer Investasi akibat pelanggaran hukum yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi sehingga menyebabkan Manajer Investasi tersebut dijatuhi sanksi administratif oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan. Dalam tesis ini akan menggunakan studi kasus pencabutan izin usaha Manajer Investasi PT. Eurocapital Peregrine Securities (PT EPS). Terdapat dua pertanyaan utama dalam tesis ini, yaitu mengenai kesesuaian putusan OJK mencabut izin PT EPS sebagai Manajer Investasi dengan peraturan di bidang pasar modal dan mengenai ketepatan putusan Lembaga Peradilan yang menyatakan pelanggaran Anggota Direksi PT EPS menjadi tanggung jawab pribadi Anggota Direksi dan bukan tanggung jawab Manajer Investasi. Tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif untuk menunjukkan bahwa suatu Manajer Investasi dapat dibebankan tanggung jawab akibat pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi menggunakan Teori Badan Hukum Sebagai Kenyataan Yuridis (juridische Realiteitsleer). Berdasarkan penelitian, ditemukan Putusan OJK yang mencabut izin PT EPS sebagai Manajer Investasi telah sesuai dengan peraturan di bidang pasar modal karena dalam UUPM pembebanan tanggung jawab atas pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi Manajer Investasi merupakan beban Manajer Investasi. Sedangkan Putusan Lembaga Peradilan yang menyatakan pelanggaran Anggota Direksi PT EPS menjadi tanggung jawab pribadi Anggota Direksi sehingga menyatakan batal pencabutan izin usaha Manajer Investasi atas nama PT EPS adalah kurang tepat. Hal ini dapat karena PT EPS sendiri lemah dalam pengawasan kegiatannya. Namun, pembebanan tanggung jawab kepada Manajer Investasi bukan berarti membebaskan tanggung jawab Anggota Direksi atas pelanggaran yang dilakukannnya. Anggota Direksi bertanggung jawab secara pribadi kepada Manajer Investasi yang telah dirugikannya.

---

ABSTRACT
This thesis discusses about legal liability assessed to an Investment manager due to tort committed by its Member of Board of Directors, causing the Investment Manager administrative sanctions by the Financial Services Authority. This thesis will use case studies permit revocation Investment Manager PT. Eurocapital Peregrine Securities (PT EPS). There are two main questions in this thesis, regarding the suitability of the FSA's decision to revoke permit PT EPS as Investment Manager with the capital market regulations and the suitability of the Institute of Justice ruling stating tort of the member of the Board of Directors (member of BOD) of PT EPS is the liability of the member of BOD in personal and not the liability of Investment Manager. This thesis using normative legal research methods to indicate that an Investment Manager can be charged with the liability for tort committed by the member of BOD using the Theory of Legal Entity In fact Juridical (Juridische Realiteitsleer). Based on the research, it was found that the FSA verdict revoked the licenses of PT EPS as Investment Manager in accordance with the regulations of the capital market since the imposition UUPM liability for tort committed by the member of BOD of the Investment Manager an Investment Manager burden. Meanwhile, the Institute of Justice ruling stating tort of member of BOD of PT EPS is the liability of the member of BOD to declare null and revocation of business licenses on behalf of the Investment Manager PT EPS is less precise. This could be because PT EPS themselves weak in monitoring activities. However, the imposition of liability to the Investment Manager not absolve the liability of member of BOD for his tort. The member of BOD is personally liable to the Investment Manager who has been harmed., This thesis discusses about legal liability assessed to an Investment manager due to tort committed by its Member of Board of Directors, causing the Investment Manager administrative sanctions by the Financial Services Authority. This thesis will use case studies permit revocation Investment Manager PT. Eurocapital Peregrine Securities (PT EPS). There are two main questions in this thesis, regarding the suitability of the FSA's decision to revoke permit PT EPS as Investment Manager with the capital market regulations and the suitability of the Institute of Justice ruling stating tort of the member of the Board of Directors (member of BOD) of PT EPS is the liability of the member of BOD in personal and not the liability of Investment Manager. This thesis using normative legal research methods to indicate that an Investment Manager can be charged with the liability for tort committed by the member of BOD using the Theory of Legal Entity In fact Juridical (Juridische Realiteitsleer). Based on the research, it was found that the FSA verdict revoked the licenses of PT EPS as Investment Manager in accordance with the regulations of the capital market since the imposition UUPM liability for tort committed by the member of BOD of the Investment Manager an Investment Manager burden. Meanwhile, the Institute of Justice ruling stating tort of member of BOD of PT EPS is the liability of the member of BOD to declare null and revocation of business licenses on behalf of the Investment Manager PT EPS is less precise. This could be because PT EPS themselves weak in monitoring activities. However, the imposition of liability to the Investment Manager not absolve the liability of member of BOD for his tort. The member of BOD is personally liable to the Investment Manager who has been harmed.]

Abstrak :
Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004, kewenangan pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek termasuk Manajer Investasi hanya dapat dilakukan oleh Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK). Namun dalam kenyataannya, terdapat kasus permohonan pernyataan pailit yang diajukan selain oleh OJK dan diterima pengadilan. Terhadap Manajer Investasi yang telah dinyatakan pailit oleh pengadilan, kemudian timbul permasalahan mengenai kewenangan pengelolaan Reksa Dana dari Manajer Investasi yang pailit. Kemudian OJK sebagai regulator pasar modal juga memiliki peranan yang besar namun hingga saat ini belum ada landasan hukumnya. Terkait permasalahan tersebut, bagi kasus permohonan pernyataan pailit kepada Manajer Investasi yang diajukan selain oleh OJK seharusnya tidak dapat diterima dan terhadap Manajer Investasi yang sudah dinyatakan pailit tidak memiliki kewenangan lagi untuk mengelola Reksa Dana. Sedangkan OJK harus segera membuat landasan hukum terkait peranan OJK dalam pengajuan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap Perusahaan Efek. ......According to the law number 37 of 2004, the authority to file a petition for a bankruptcy declaration to securities companies including investment managers can only be exercised by the Financial Services Authority (OJK).  However, there are cases of bankruptcy declaration filing that were submitted other than by the OJK and accepted by the court.  For an investment manager who has been declared bankrupt by the court, then a problem arises regarding the authority to manage Mutual Funds from the bankrupt Investment Manager. Then, OJK as the capital market regulator also has a big role but there is no legal basis, until now. In relation to this problem, the case for a bankruptcy declaration to an Investment Manager that submitted by other than the OJK should not be accepted and an Investment Manager who has been declared bankrupt does not have the authority to manage Mutual Funds. Meanwhile, OJK has to immediately make a legal basis regarding its role in submitting a petition for a bankruptcy declaration for  securities company.