Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai pembebanan tanggung jawab hukum kepada ManajerInvestasi akibat pelanggaran hukum yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi sehinggamenyebabkan Manajer Investasi tersebut dijatuhi sanksi administratif oleh OtoritasJasa Keuangan. Dalam tesis ini akan menggunakan studi kasus pencabutan izin usahaManajer Investasi PT. Eurocapital Peregrine Securities (PT EPS). Terdapat duapertanyaan utama dalam tesis ini, yaitu mengenai kesesuaian putusan OJK mencabutizin PT EPS sebagai Manajer Investasi dengan peraturan di bidang pasar modal danmengenai ketepatan putusan Lembaga Peradilan yang menyatakan pelanggaranAnggota Direksi PT EPS menjadi tanggung jawab pribadi Anggota Direksi dan bukantanggung jawab Manajer Investasi. Tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukumnormatif untuk menunjukkan bahwa suatu Manajer Investasi dapat dibebankantanggung jawab akibat pelanggaran yang dilakukan oleh Anggota Direksimenggunakan Teori Badan Hukum Sebagai Kenyataan Yuridis (juridischeRealiteitsleer). Berdasarkan penelitian, ditemukan Putusan OJK yang mencabut izinPT EPS sebagai Manajer Investasi telah sesuai dengan peraturan di bidang pasarmodal karena dalam UUPM pembebanan tanggung jawab atas pelanggaran yangdilakukan oleh Anggota Direksi Manajer Investasi merupakan beban ManajerInvestasi. Sedangkan Putusan Lembaga Peradilan yang menyatakan pelanggaranAnggota Direksi PT EPS menjadi tanggung jawab pribadi Anggota Direksi sehinggamenyatakan batal pencabutan izin usaha Manajer Investasi atas nama PT EPS adalahkurang tepat. Hal ini dapat karena PT EPS sendiri lemah dalam pengawasankegiatannya. Namun, pembebanan tanggung jawab kepada Manajer Investasi bukanberarti membebaskan tanggung jawab Anggota Direksi atas pelanggaran yangdilakukannnya. Anggota Direksi bertanggung jawab secara pribadi kepada ManajerInvestasi yang telah dirugikannya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about legal liability assessed to an Investment manager dueto tort committed by its Member of Board of Directors, causing the InvestmentManager administrative sanctions by the Financial Services Authority. This thesiswill use case studies permit revocation Investment Manager PT. EurocapitalPeregrine Securities (PT EPS). There are two main questions in this thesis,regarding the suitability of the FSA's decision to revoke permit PT EPS asInvestment Manager with the capital market regulations and the suitability of theInstitute 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 personaland not the liability of Investment Manager. This thesis using normative legalresearch methods to indicate that an Investment Manager can be charged with theliability for tort committed by the member of BOD using the Theory of LegalEntity In fact Juridical (Juridische Realiteitsleer). Based on the research, it wasfound that the FSA verdict revoked the licenses of PT EPS as Investment Managerin accordance with the regulations of the capital market since the impositionUUPM liability for tort committed by the member of BOD of the InvestmentManager an Investment Manager burden. Meanwhile, the Institute of Justiceruling stating tort of member of BOD of PT EPS is the liability of the member ofBOD to declare null and revocation of business licenses on behalf of theInvestment Manager PT EPS is less precise. This could be because PT EPSthemselves weak in monitoring activities. However, the imposition of liability tothe 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 beenharmed., This thesis discusses about legal liability assessed to an Investment manager dueto tort committed by its Member of Board of Directors, causing the InvestmentManager administrative sanctions by the Financial Services Authority. This thesiswill use case studies permit revocation Investment Manager PT. EurocapitalPeregrine Securities (PT EPS). There are two main questions in this thesis,regarding the suitability of the FSA's decision to revoke permit PT EPS asInvestment Manager with the capital market regulations and the suitability of theInstitute 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 personaland not the liability of Investment Manager. This thesis using normative legalresearch methods to indicate that an Investment Manager can be charged with theliability for tort committed by the member of BOD using the Theory of LegalEntity In fact Juridical (Juridische Realiteitsleer). Based on the research, it wasfound that the FSA verdict revoked the licenses of PT EPS as Investment Managerin accordance with the regulations of the capital market since the impositionUUPM liability for tort committed by the member of BOD of the InvestmentManager an Investment Manager burden. Meanwhile, the Institute of Justiceruling stating tort of member of BOD of PT EPS is the liability of the member ofBOD to declare null and revocation of business licenses on behalf of theInvestment Manager PT EPS is less precise. This could be because PT EPSthemselves weak in monitoring activities. However, the imposition of liability tothe 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 beenharmed.]"

"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."

"Pertanggungjawaban Manajer Investasi pada prinsipnya dibagi menjadi 2 (dua) yaitu pertanggungjawaban Manajer Investasi sebagai Perseroan atau Perusahaan Efek, dan pertanggungjawaban Manajer Investasi sebagai perorangan yang dalam melakukan kegiatan usahanya Manajer Investasi diwakilkan oleh Wakil Manajer Investasi (WMI). Adapun terkait pertanggungjawabannya apabila ditinjau dari hukum Pasar Modal, dalam hal Manajer Investasi melakukan pelanggaran maka sanksi yang diterapkan adalah sanksi administrasi. Di lingkup Pasar Modal juga mengenal adanya tindak pidana di bidang Pasar Modal namun yang cukup unik dan baru dalam keterlibatan Manajer Investasi pada kasus PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) adalah Manajer Investasi diduga sebagai turut serta menyebabkan kerugian Negara karena keterlibatanya dalam mengelola dana investasi PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero), yang mana merupakan salah satu entitas Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN). Penelitian ini berusaha untuk menjawab beberapa permasalahan, yaitu pertama, mengenai pengaturan mengenai fungsi dan pengawasan Manajer Investasi dalam hal melakukan pelanggaran dan pertanggungjawaban Manajer Investasi yang terlibat dalam tindak pidana korupsi pada kasus PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero). Dalam penelitian ini, Penulis melakukan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan cara studi kepustakaan yang dilakukan terhadap data sekunder. Oleh karena itu, untuk menjawab beberapa rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini, maka penting untuk dikaji lebih lanjut mengenai Manajer Investasi ditinjau dari hukum Pasar Modal serta keterlibatan Manajer Investasi dalam tindak pidana korupsi dan pencucian uang.

---

The Investment Manager's responsibilities is technically divided into 2 (two), that is the Investment Manager's responsibilities as a Company or Securities Company; and the Investment Manager's responsibilities as individuals represented by an Investment Manager Representative (WMI). As for liability, if analyzed from the Capital Market Law, If the Investment Manager commits a violation, the sanctions applied are administrative. But, Capital Market Law recognizes criminal acts but there is unique and new things in the involvement of the Investment Manager in the cases of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) because Investment Manager who participates in causing state losses due to his involvement in managing investment funds of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero), which is one of the State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN). This study seeks to answer several problems, that is first, regarding the regulation of the functions; and supervision of Investment Managers in terms of committing violations and accountability of Investment Managers involved in criminal acts of corruption in the case of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero). In this research, the author conducted a normative juridical research by means of a literature study conducted on secondary data. Therefore, to answer some of the problem issues in this research, it is important to have a further review of Investment Managers in terms of Capital Market Law and the involvement of Investment Managers in corruption and money laundry."