Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Dengan meningkatnya pembangunan yang bertitik berat pada bidang ekonomi, dibutuhkan penyediaan dana yang cukup besar, sehingga memerlukan lembaga hak jaminan yang kuat dan mampu memberikan kepastian hukum bagi pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan, yang dapat mendorong peningkatan partisipasi masyarakat dalam pembangunan, hal ini yang menjadi latar belakang lahirnya lembaga jaminan Hak Tanggungan. Skripsi ini menjelaskan mengenai adanya konflik norma di dalam Undang-Undang Hak Tanggungan No.4 Tahun 1996 dan juga di dalam Undang-Undang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang yang mengakibatkan perlindungan dan kepastian hukum bagi kreditor pemegang Hak Tanggungan sebagai Kreditor Separatis yang diatur didalam Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 1996 dapat tidak terwujud. Perlindungan dan kepastian hukum yang diberikan undang-undang kepada kreditor pemegang Hak Tanggungan terdapat di dalam Pasal 1 angka 1 tentang hak preference seorang kreditor; Pasal 6, Pasal 14 ayat (1), (2), dan (3) serta Pasal 20 ayat (2) dan (3) tentang eksekusi Hak Tanggungan; Pasal 11 ayat (2) tentang janji yang harus dicantumkan dalam Akta Pemberian Hak Tanggungan (APHT) untuk melindungi kreditor ketika debitor wanprestasi, serta ketentuan Pasal 7 tentang asas droit de suite yang menyatakan bahwa Hak Tanggungan tetap menjamin objeknya sekalipun beralih kepada pihak ketiga sehingga akan tetap menjamin pelunasan piutang kreditor dan Pasal 21 mengenai “Apabila pemberi Hak Tanggungan dinyatakan pailit, pemegang Hak Tanggungan tetap berwenang melakukan segala hak yang diperolehnya menurut ketentuan undang-undang ini. Kesimpulan dalam penelitian mengenai perlindungan dan kepastian hukum dalam Pasal-Pasal tersebut dapat tidak terwujud dikarenakan adanya konflik norma dalam Pasal 6 UUHT tentang kewenangan menjual sendiri jaminan kebendaan (Parate Eksekusi) dan ketentuan pada Pasal 56 ayat (1) UUKPKPU tentang penangguhan eksekusi bagi kreditor separatis dalam hal kepailitan. Penelitian ini bermetodekan yuridis- normatif yang metode pengambilan data berfokus pada studi literatur hukum dan peraturan perundang-undangan terkait.

---

Along with the increasing development of economy, also required the provision of substantial funds that requires strong institutions which guarantee the rights and able to provide legal certainty for the concerned parties, in which also encourage the growth of community participation in the development, those are the background of the birth of mortgage guarantee agency. This thesis describes the conflict of norms in the Law No.4 of 1996 regarding Mortgage (UUHT) and also in the Law No 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy Act and the Suspension of Payment (UUKPKPU) that may cause legal uncertainty to the protection of mortgage holder creditor as secure creditor based on Law No. 4 of 1996. The protection and legal certainty for mortgage holder creditor contains in Article 1 paragraph 1 regarding the preference right of a creditor; Article 6, Article 14 paragraph (1), (2), and (3) and Article 20 paragraph (2) and (3) of the mortgage execution; Article 11 paragraph (2) on the provision that must be included in the Deed of Granting Mortgage (APHT) to protect creditor when a debtor defaults, as well as the provision of Article 7 of the principle of droit de suite which states that the object remains guarantee, even if it will be switched to a third party, would still guarantee the repayment of creditors’ accounts and Article 21 that states “In the event of bankruptcy, the mortgage holder is authorized to perform any right acquired under the provisions of this law”. The elements of protection and legal certainty in these articles may not be realized due to conflict norms in Article 6 UUHT regarding the authority to sell collateral material (Parate Execution) and the provision of Article 56 paragraph (1) UUKPKPU regarding suspension of execution for the secure creditor in bankruptcy law. This study applies the juridical-normative method of data collection, focusing on the study of the literature of law and related legislation.

Abstrak :
Penilaian suatu bank dalam memberikan persetujuan atas suatu permohonan kredit oleh nasabah debitur dilakukan dengan berpedoman kepada Formula 4P yaitu Personality, Purpose, Prospect, Payment, dan Formula 5C yaitu Character, Capacity, Capital, Collateral, dan Condition of Economy. Salah satu jaminan kebendaan yang diberikan oleh debitur guna memenuhi unsur Collateral adalah jaminan fidusia, yang pengaturannya tertuang dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia (?UUJF?). Pada saat debitur pemberi jaminan fidusia ingkar janji (wanprestasi) terhadap perjanjian kredit, bank selaku kreditur pemegang jaminan fidusia berhak melakukan upaya eksekusi jaminan fidusia oleh kreditur sebagaimana diatur pada Bab V tentang Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia dalam UUJF. Namun, eksekusi jaminan fidusia tersebut seringkali dihadapi dengan upaya perlawanan dari debitur pemberi jaminan fidusia (Partij Verzet) yang tidak berkehendak barang jaminan fidusia yang telah diberikannya dieksekusi, sehingga timbul permasalahan, yaitu apakah dasar hukum yang digunakan debitur dalam mengajukan perlawanan eksekusi jaminan fidusia telah sesuai dengan ketentuan hukum yang berlaku, dan bagaimanakah akibat hukum perlawanan debitur terhadap eksekusi jaminan fidusia. Skripsi ini berusaha menjelaskan alasan yang relevan bagi debitur untuk mengajukan perlawanan eksekusi terhadap eksekusi jaminan fidusia dan akibat hukum perlawanan debitur terhadap eksekusi jaminan fidusia. Dalam penulisan ini, penulis menggunakan type penelitian yuridis normatif. Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder yang dianalisa secara kualitatif. Hasil dari penelitian akan memberikan gambaran mengenai perlawanan debitur terhadap eksekusi jaminan fidusia oleh kreditur dikaitkan dengan ketentuan hukum acara perdata (Herzeine Indonesiche Reglement/HIR) dan UUJF. Perlawanan yang diajukan oleh debitur sebagai pihak tereksekusi (Partij Verzet) tidak mutlak menunda eksekusi. Penundaan eksekusi hanya dapat dilakukan atas dasar alasan bahwa debitur akan memenuhi kewajiban pembayaran tertunggaknya kepada kreditur atau debitur telah memenuhi seluruh kewajiban pembayarannya kepada kreditur.

---

A bank?s appraisal when approving an apllication for credit by a debtor is based on the 4P formula which is Personality, Purpose, Prospect, Payment, and the 5C Formula which is Character, Capacity, Capital, Collateral, and Condition of Economy. One of collateral form put up by the debtor to fulfill the Collateral element is the fiduciary guarantee which is regulated under Law Number 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Guarantee (?LoFG?). In the event that the debtor as the grantor of fiduciary guarantee collateral is in default of the credit agreement, the bank as the creditor is entitled to execute the fiduciary guarantee as regulated in Chapter V on Execution of Fiduciary Guarantee in the LoFG. However, such executions of fiduciary guarantees often face counter efforts from the debtor as the grantor of fiduciary guarantee collateral (Partij Verzet) who is against the execution, thereby raising the issue of whether the legal basis used by the debtor in counter measures against the execution on the fiduciary guarantee is in accordance with the stipulations of the prevailing laws, and what are the legal consequences of those measures. This paper attempts to provide relevant explanations for the debtor to undertake counter execution measures on the fiduciary guarantee and the legal consequences of those measures. In writing this paper, the author uses a normative juridical study. The data used is a secondary data analyzed qualitatively. The result of the study will give an illustration on debtor?s counter measures against the fiduciary guarantee execution measures by the creditor in regards to the civil law (Herzeine Indonesiche Reglement / HIR) and the Law on Fiduciary Guarantee / LoFG. The counter measures taken by the debtor as the party facing the consequences of the execution (Partij Verzet) shall not delay the execution. Delay of execution shall only be permitted on the grounds that the debtor is able to fulfill its outstanding payment to the creditor or has fulfilled all its payment obligations to the creditor.

Abstrak :
Dalam menjalankan jabatannya, seorang PPAT dapat dilakukan tuntutan pidana. Namun tidak semua PPAT yang tersangkut dalam suatu perkara pidana benar melakukan tindak pidana yang disangkakan tersebut. Pada penulisan ini, penulis memfokuskan pada pemasalahan yang terjadi pada seorang PPAT di Jayapura, yaitu terkait dengan pelaksanaan jabatan oleh PPAT di Jayapura dan juga terkait dengan tuntutan dugaan melakukan tindak pidana penggelapan sertipikat. Penelitian dilakukan dengan penelitian kepustakaan yang bersifat hukum normatif, yaitu dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa dalam pelaksanaan jabatan PPAT terdapat beberapa yang tidak dilakukan oleh PPAT, dan terhadap dugaan melakukan tindak pidana penggelapan sertipikat tidak terpenuhi unsur-unsur dari Pasal 372 KUHP. ......In running position, a PPAT can be done to criminal prosecution. But not all PPAT implicated in a criminal case really committed the crime alleged is. At this writing, the author focuses on pemasalahan happens to a PPAT in Jayapura, which is associated with the implementation of the post by PPAT in Jayapura and also related to the alleged charges of committing criminal offenses of embezzlement certificate. The study was conducted by the research literature that is both normative law, namely by working out library materials. It can be concluded that in the implementation of the post PPAT there are some that are not made by PPAT, and on suspicion of committing the crime of embezzlement certificates are not met the elements of Article 372 of the Criminal Code.

Abstrak :
For many homeowners, refinancing a mortgage can save them significant money, considerably reducing their monthly payments. It can also give them breathing space to pay off debts or allow them to make other investments, pay for college, or finance home improvements. In this essential guide, readers will learn why to refinance, when to refinance, as well as how to find the best lender, loan officer, and rate. Mortgage expert David Reed takes readers step by step through the refinance process and shows them how to evaluate their current loan program and compare it with other options.

Abstrak :
Kapal laut dapat dijadikan sebagai objek jaminan guna menjamin pelunasan suatu utang. Lembaga jaminan atas kapal laut adalah hipotik. Namun hanya kapal yang terdaftar dalam suatu register umum sajalah yang dapat dijadikan jaminan utang. Hipotik kapal laut juga dikenal di negara yang menganut sistem hukum common law, salah satu diantaranya adalah Singapura. Tesis ini membahas mengenai proses penjaminan kapal laut menurut hukum Indonesia dan Singapura serta persamaan dan perbedaan ketentuan kapal laut sebagai objek jaminan utang di Indonesia dan di Singapura. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis-normatif dengan tipologi penelitian komparatif serta deskriptif. Selain itu dalam penelitian ini, Penulis menggunakan metode analisis kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini membahas mengenai proses penjaminan kapal laut di Indonesia dan di Singapura yang samasama terdiri dari 3 tahap yaitu tahap perjanjian kredit, tahap perjanjian pembebanan hipotik kapal laut dan tahap pendaftaran hipotik kapal laut. Selain itu terdapat persamaan dan perbedaan ketentuan hipotik kapal laut di Indonesia dan Singapura. Persamaan ketentuan hipotik kapal laut di Indonesia dan Singapura antara lain baik di Indonesia maupun di Singapura belum Undang-Undang Hipotik Kapal, hipotik kapal laut di Indonesia dan Singapura hanya dapat dibebankan atas kapal yang terdaftar, hipotik kapal laut harus didaftarkan dalam suatu register umum, kapal laut dapat dibebani lebih dari satu hipotik dan lain-lain. Sedangkan perbedaannya antara lain di singapura vessel mortgage terdiri dari 2 bentuk yaitu securing principle sum and interest dan securing current account, syarat pembebanan vessel mortgage di Singapura adalah kapal tersebut harus berusia kurang dari 17 tahun dan kapal tersebut harus berukuran minimal 1,600 Gross Tonnage dan Singapura memiliki pengadilan khusus di bidang admiral yaitu High Court (Admiral Jurisdiction).

---

A vessel may be made as a collateral security for loan and the instrument creating the security over the vessel is a mortgage. Only registered vessel that can be made as an object of a mortgage. Vessel mortgage also known in common law legal system countries, such as Singapore. This research is discuss about the procedural of vessel mortgage in Indonesia and Singapore and also find out the similarities and differences among two of them. This research is using a juridicalnormative method as the research method with comparative and also descriptive research typology. The method of data analysis in this research is using qualitative approach. The result of this research showed that both in Indonesia and Singapore, the process of vessel mortgage are consist of 3 steps which are the loan agreement, the collateral agreement and the registration of the vessel mortgage. Moreover, there are similarities between the provision regarding vessel mortgage in Indonesia and Singapore which are both in Indonesia and Singapore, there is no regulation that specifically regulates vessel mortgage, only registered vessel that can be made as an object of a mortgage under Indonesia and Singapore regulation, vessel mortgage shall be recorded by the Registrar in the register and the rest will be discussed in this reseach. Whereas the differences between the provision regarding vessel mortgage in Indonesia and Singapore among others are as follow, in Singapore vessel mortgage is divided by 2 forms which are Securing Principle Sum and Interest form and Securing Current Account form, in Singapore there are requirements regarding the vessel that can be made as an object of the mortgage, such as, the vessels should be less than 17 years old and the vessel must be a minimum size of 1,600 Gross Tonnage, furthermore, Singapore has a special court in the admiral field which is High Court (Admiral Jurisdiction).