Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Putusan Hakim kadangkala mengandung kekeliruan. Untuk memperbaiki putusan hakim yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dan mengandung kekeliruan, Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana memberikan hak kepada terpidana atau ahli warisnya untuk mengajukan upaya hukum peninjauan kembali. Secara normatif, Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHAP telah menentukan hanya terpidana atau ahli warisnya yang dapat mengajukan peninjauan kembali. Namun, dalam praktiknya di temukan adanya peninjauan kembali yang diajukan oleh Jaksa. Penelitian ini mengkaji landasan pemikiran apa yang dipergunakan oleh jaksa dalam mengajukan peninjuan kembali dan apa yang menjadi dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam menerima peninjauan kembali. Metode yang dipergunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan yuridis normatif. Penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dilakukan dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka dan bahan primer berupa Putusan MA No. 55PK/Pid/1996 atas nama terpidana Muchtar Pakpahan dan perkara No. 15/PK/Pid/2006 tanggal 19 Juni 2006 atas nama Setyowati. Dari hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa landasan jaksa dalam mengajukan peninjauan kembali adalah berdasarkan ketentuan Pasal 263 ayat (3) KUHAP, Pasal 21 undang-undang No. 14 tahun 1970 yang telah dirubah terakhir dengan undangundang No.48 tahun 2009 dan praktik yurisprudensi yang telah membenarkan jaksa sebagai pihak yang dapat mengajukan peninjauan kembali. Dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam menerima peninjauan kembali yang diajukan oleh jaksa adalah Mahkamah Agung dengan menafsirkan ketentuan 263 ayat (3) KUHAP dan undang-undang kekuasaan kehakiman melalui putusannya menciptakan hukum acara pidana sendiri dengan melakukan suatu terobosan hukum penerimaan permohonan peninjauan kembali guna menampung kekurangan pengaturan mengenai hak jaksa untuk mengajukan permohonan pemeriksaan peninjaun kembali dalam perkara pidana untuk rasa keadilan yang tercermin dalam masyarakat

---

Abstract
Judges verdict sometimes contain errors. To fix the verdict which has permanent legal force and contain errors, the Book of Law Criminal Procedure Code gives rights to the guilty party or their heirs to file a legal review. Normatively, the Article 263 paragraph (1) Criminal Procedure Code has to determine only the convicted person or his heirs can submit a review. However, in practice found a reconsideration filed by the prosecutor. This study examines what the rationale used by prosecutors in filing peninjuan back and what the basic consideration of the judge in receiving a review. The method used in this research is a normative juridical approach. Normative juridical legal research done by examining library materials and primary materials in the form of MA No Decision. 55PK/Pid/1996 on behalf of the convicted person and case No. Muchtar Pakpahan. 15/PK/Pid/2006 dated June 19, 2006 on behalf of Setyowati. From the survey results revealed that the basis of the prosecutor in the judicial review is filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 263 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code, Article 21 of Law No.. 14 of 1970 which amended the latest by law No.48 of 2009 and the practice of jurisprudence that has been confirmed as the party that the attorney can file a reconsideration. The basic consideration in the judge accepted the review is submitted by the prosecutor of the Supreme Court to interpret the provisions of subsection 263 (3) Criminal Procedure Code and the law of judicial power over the decision to create its own criminal law by performing a groundbreaking legal acceptance of an application for review in order to accommodate the lack of regulation on the right of prosecutors to apply for re-examination in criminal cases review to a sense of justice is reflected in the community

Abstrak :
Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) merupakan lembaga independen pengawas pelaksanaan Undang - Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 Tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. KPPU berhak memberikan putusan tetapi tidak memiliki kedudukan sebagai lembaga peradilan perdata, sehingga putusan tersebut tidak dapat di eksekusi oleh KPPU. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui eksekusi putusan KPPU yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dalam praktiknya, megetahui mengapa hingga saat ini masih banyak pelaku usaha yang tidak melaksanakan putusan KPPU yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap, serta apakah upaya-upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan agar eksekusi putusan KPPU yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dapat berjalan sebagaimana mestinya. Penulisan skripsi ini dikaji berdasarkan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif dan metode deskriptif analitis, yaitu memfokuskan pemecahan masalah berdasarkan data yang diperoleh yang kemudian dianalisa berdasarkan ketentuan dalam perundang-undangan terkait Hukum Persaingan Usaha di Indonesia, literatur serta bahan lain yang berhubungan dengan penelitian dan penelitian lapangan untuk memperoleh data primer melalui wawancara. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa eksekusi putusan KPPU yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dalam praktiknya mengalami berbagai hambatan sehingga tidak dipatuhi oleh pelaku usaha, adanya defense kerahasiaan informasi perusahaan menyebabkan KPPU tidak dapat memperoleh data perusahaan yang diperlukan untuk diletakkan sebagai objek sita eksekusi. ......The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) is an independent institution who supervise the implementation of Indonesian Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Banning of Monopoly Practice and Unfair Competition. KPPU is entitled to give judgment but not has the position as a private court, therefore the aforementioned judgment cannot be executed by KPPU. With this sense, this research tries to analyze the execution of final and binding judgment given by KPPU in it's implementations,to do know why until now there is still businesses not to execute KPPU verdict, and to know what legal remedy that can be done so the execution of KPPU verdict be function properly. The methodological approach in this research is a juridical normative approach and the analitical descriptive research, which analyze the research to secondary materials and it's relations with Business Competition Law in Indonesia, as well as any other literatures, and field researching in order to obtain primary materials through interviews. The result shows the execution of final and binding judgment given by KPPU was initiated by KPPU to the District Court to conduct an execution, further, to put a seizure over the execution and also the outcome of auction sales. The District Court will later demand KPPU to be more active in conducting the seizure of the execution by revealing KPPU to earn some kind of object of the execution, such as assets to be seized, when in reality, those objects are difficult to find.

Abstrak :
Wewenang Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) untuk melakukan pengawasan dalam perkara kemitraan terdapat dalam Pasal 36 UU No. 20 Tahun 2008 (UU UMKM). Lebih lanjut dalam peraturan pelaksana UU UMKM, yaitu dalam PP No. 7 Tahun 2021 (PP 7/2021) disebutkan pula dalam Pasal 123 bahwa tata cara pengawasan perkara kemitraan akan adanya indikasi pelanggaran persaingan usaha diatur dengan Peraturan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (Peraturan Komisi). Peraturan Komisi yang berlaku saat ini adalah Peraturan Komisi No. 4 Tahun 2019 (Perkom 4/2019). Menariknya dalam Perkom 4/2019 ini disebutkan dalam Pasal 66 ayat (4) bahwa putusan KPPU bersifat final. Lebih lanjut dalam Perkom 4/2019 ini juga tidak lagi diatur mengenai upaya hukum yang dapat diajukan oleh Terlapor terhadap putusan yang dijatuhkan oleh KPPU. Padahal dalam PP 7/2021 tidak disebutkan bahwa putusan yang dijatuhkan oleh KPPU bersifat final. Dengan adanya ketentuan dalam pasal 66 ayat (4) Perkom 4/2019 tentunya bisa sangat merugikan Terlapor yang dirugikan akibat putusan KPPU yang dijatuhkan kepadanya, sebab mekanisme untuk mengajukan upaya hukum tidak diatur dalam Perkom 4/2019. Adapun dalam menjawab permasalahan pada penelitian ini dilakukan analisis menggunakan metode kepustakaan sehingga menghasilkan penelitian yang deskriptif. Sementara dari hasil Penelitian skripsi ini didapati bahwa Putusan KPPU dalam perkara kemitraan yang tidak menyediakan mekanisme pengajuan upaya hukum kepada Terlapor tidak tepat ditinjau berdasarkan ketentuan hukum acara yang berlaku. Serta tidak ada perlindungan hukum yang diberikan kepada terlapor setelah adanya Perkom 4/2019. Sehingga diperlukan adanya peninjauan ulang atas ketentuan dalam Pasal 66 ayat (4) Perkom 4/2019 yang menyebutkan bahwa Putusan Komisi bersifat final serta perlu disebutkan secara tegas pula mengenai alternatif perlindungan hukum yang dapat ditempuh oleh Terlapor atas Putusan KPPU dalam perkara kemitraan yang dijatuhkan kepadanya, yang dapat dilakukan melalui alternatif yang diberikan kepada Terlapor untuk dapat mengajukan permohonan pembatalan Putusan Komisi ke Pengadilan Niaga. ......The authority of the Indonesia Competition Commission (KPPU) to supervise partnership agreements is contained in Article 36 of Law No. 20 of 2008 (UU UMKM). Further in the implementing regulations of the UMKM Law, namely in government regulations No. 7 of 2021 (PP 7/2021) It is also stated that in Article 123 PP, the procedures for supervising partnership agreements for indications of business competition violations are regulated by the Regulations of the Indonesia Competition Commission (“Peraturan Komisi"). The Commission Regulation currently in effect is Commission Regulation No. 4 of 2019 (Perkom 4/2019). Interestingly, in Perkom 4/2019 it is stated in Article 66 paragraph (4) that the KPPU's decision is final. Furthermore, Perkom 4/2019 also no longer stipulates legal remedies that can be submitted by the Reported Party against decisions handed down by the KPPU. Even though PP 7/2021 does not state that the decisions handed down by the KPPU are final. With the provisions in Article 66 paragraph (4) Perkom 4/2019, of course, it can be very detrimental to the Reported Party who is harmed by the KPPU's decision handed down to him, because the mechanism for filing legal remedies is not regulated in Perkom 4/2019. As for answering the problems in this study, analysis was carried out using the library method so as to produce descriptive research in the form of a description of the existing facts. Meanwhile, from the results of this thesis research it was found that The KPPU's decision in a partnership agreement that does not provide a mechanism for filing legal action against the Reported Party is inappropriately reviewed based on the provisions of the applicable procedural law. As well as no legal protection was given to the reported party after Perkom 4/2019. So it is necessary to review the provisions in Article 66 paragraph (4) Perkom 4/2019 which states that the Commission's Decision is final and it is also necessary to state explicitly regarding alternative legal protections that can be taken by the Reported Party for the KPPU's Decision in the partnership case handed down to him, which can be done through an alternative provided to the Reported Party to be able to submit a request for cancellation of the Commission Decision to the Commercial Court.

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Tesis dengan judul Tinjauan Hukum Terhadap Hak PT. Wijaya Karya (Persero) Tbk yang Belum Terpenuhi Selaku Kreditor Pasca Pembagian Boedel Pailit PT. UE ASSA (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 410 k/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2013) dilatar belakangi oleh PT. Wijaya Karya yang mengajukan kasasi kepada Mahkamah Agung atas putusan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya Nomor 08/PLW.Pailit/2013/PN.Niaga Sby jo Nomor. 07/PKPU/2011/PN Sby tanggal 22 April 2013 karena PT. Wijaya Karya menganggap, bahwa putusan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya tersebut sangat tidak adil oleh karena dalam putusan pailit PT. Wijaya Karya hanya menerima bagian 0,28% dari boedel pailit PT. UE ASSA atau sebesar Rp. 2.149.802.062,47 dari seluruh piutang sebesar Rp. 112.835.211.143,00. Yang menjadi pokok permasalahan adalah: 1. Bagaimanakah kedudukan tanggungjawab perusahaan beserta seluruh jajaran pengurus PT. UE ASSA dalam melunasi seluruh hutangnya terhadap PT. Wijaya Karya ditinjau dari UU Perseroan Terbatas dan UU Kepailitan? 2. Bagaimanakah upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh PT. Wijaya Karya dalam memperoleh seluruh hak yang belum terpenuhi pasca putusan MA Nomor. 410.K/Pdt-Sus.Pailit/2013? Dengan dinyatakan pailit, pengurusan harta kekayaan PT. UE ASSA beralih kepada kurator. Kepailitan PT. UE ASSA pada prinsipnya tidak mengakibatkan PT. UE ASSA kehilangan haknya untuk mengurus dan menguasai harta kekayaannya dan tidak mengakibatkan terhentinya aktivitas PT. UE ASSA, oleh karena dalam kepailitan PT. UE ASSA kewenangan Direksi beralih kepada kurator yang kemudian dapat bertindak sebagai Direksi untuk mengelola PT. UE ASSA. Pertanggungjawaban PT. UE ASSA merupakan pertanggungjawaban secara timbal balik, sehingga yang dijatuhi putusan pailit adalah perseroannya dan bukan Direksi sepanjang Direksi tidak bertindak melawan hukum. Ada beberapa Upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan untuk memperoleh seluruh haknya, yaitu PT. Wijaya Karya dapat melakukan upaya: a. Melakukan upaya Peninjauan Kembali dan b. Melakukan upaya actio pauliana. Bentuk penelitian tesis ini adalah yuridis normatif, dengan tipologi penelitian bersifat deskriptif analitis, jenis data berupa data sekunder, alat pengumpulan data berupa studi dokumen, sedangkan pengolahan dan analisis data berdasarkan pendekatan yuridis normatif.

---

ABSTRACT
Thesis with the title of the Legal Overview of the Rights PT. Wijaya Karya (Persero) Tbk As Remaining Bankruptcy Creditors Post Boedel division of PT. UE ASSA (Case Study Supreme Court Decision No. 410 k / Pdt.Sus - Bankrupt / 2013 ) against the background by PT. Wijaya Karya who has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of Surabaya Commercial Court No. 08 / PLW.Pailit / 2013 / PN.Niaga SBY jo No. 07 / PKPU / 2011 / PN SBY April 22 of 2013 as PT. Wijaya Karya assume , that the Surabaya Commercial Court decision is very unfair because of the bankruptcy decision PT . Wijaya Karya only receive a portion of 0.28 % of boedel bankrupt PT. UE ASSA or Rp. 2149802062,47 of all receivables amounting to Rp . 112,835,211,143.00. The main issue are : 1. What is the status of the responsibilities of the company and the whole range of the board of PT.UE ASSA to repay the entire debt to PT . Wijaya Karya based on the Limited Liability Company Law and Bankruptcy Law? 2. What is the remedy which can be done by PT. Wijaya Karya in obtaining all the rights that have not been fulfilled after the Supreme Court decision number. 410.K / Pdt - Sus.Pailit / 2013 ? By declared bankrupt, the maintenance of the assets of PT. UE ASSA switch to the curator. PT. UE ASSA?s bankruptcyin principle does not result in PT. UE ASSA loses its right to administer and control of its assets and did not effect in the cessation of the activity of PT. UE ASSA, since in the bankruptcy of PT. UE ASSA authority of the Board of Directors switch to the curator who can then act as the Board of Directors to manage PT. UE ASSA. Responsibility PT. UE ASSA is a reciprocal responsibility, so the company sentenced for bankruptcy, not the Directors as long as the Directors did not act unlawfully. There are several legal remedies that can be done to obtain the rights, PT Wijaya Karya can: a. Conducting a Judicial Review and b. Conducting an actio pauliana. The form of this thesis research is normative juridical, with typology analytical descriptive study, the type of data in the form of secondary data, data collection tools such as the study of documents, while the processing and analysis of data based on a normative juridical approach.;Thesis with the title of the Legal Overview of the Rights PT. Wijaya Karya (Persero) Tbk As Remaining Bankruptcy Creditors Post Boedel division of PT. UE ASSA (Case Study Supreme Court Decision No. 410 k / Pdt.Sus - Bankrupt / 2013 ) against the background by PT. Wijaya Karya who has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of Surabaya Commercial Court No. 08 / PLW.Pailit / 2013 / PN.Niaga SBY jo No. 07 / PKPU / 2011 / PN SBY April 22 of 2013 as PT. Wijaya Karya assume , that the Surabaya Commercial Court decision is very unfair because of the bankruptcy decision PT . Wijaya Karya only receive a portion of 0.28 % of boedel bankrupt PT. UE ASSA or Rp. 2149802062,47 of all receivables amounting to Rp . 112,835,211,143.00. The main issue are : 1. What is the status of the responsibilities of the company and the whole range of the board of PT.UE ASSA to repay the entire debt to PT . Wijaya Karya based on the Limited Liability Company Law and Bankruptcy Law? 2. What is the remedy which can be done by PT. Wijaya Karya in obtaining all the rights that have not been fulfilled after the Supreme Court decision number. 410.K / Pdt - Sus.Pailit / 2013 ? By declared bankrupt, the maintenance of the assets of PT. UE ASSA switch to the curator. PT. UE ASSA?s bankruptcyin principle does not result in PT. UE ASSA loses its right to administer and control of its assets and did not effect in the cessation of the activity of PT. UE ASSA, since in the bankruptcy of PT. UE ASSA authority of the Board of Directors switch to the curator who can then act as the Board of Directors to manage PT. UE ASSA. Responsibility PT. UE ASSA is a reciprocal responsibility, so the company sentenced for bankruptcy, not the Directors as long as the Directors did not act unlawfully. There are several legal remedies that can be done to obtain the rights, PT Wijaya Karya can: a. Conducting a Judicial Review and b. Conducting an actio pauliana. The form of this thesis research is normative juridical, with typology analytical descriptive study, the type of data in the form of secondary data, data collection tools such as the study of documents, while the processing and analysis of data based on a normative juridical approach., Thesis with the title of the Legal Overview of the Rights PT. Wijaya Karya (Persero) Tbk As Remaining Bankruptcy Creditors Post Boedel division of PT. UE ASSA (Case Study Supreme Court Decision No. 410 k / Pdt.Sus - Bankrupt / 2013 ) against the background by PT. Wijaya Karya who has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of Surabaya Commercial Court No. 08 / PLW.Pailit / 2013 / PN.Niaga SBY jo No. 07 / PKPU / 2011 / PN SBY April 22 of 2013 as PT. Wijaya Karya assume , that the Surabaya Commercial Court decision is very unfair because of the bankruptcy decision PT . Wijaya Karya only receive a portion of 0.28 % of boedel bankrupt PT. UE ASSA or Rp. 2149802062,47 of all receivables amounting to Rp . 112,835,211,143.00. The main issue are : 1. What is the status of the responsibilities of the company and the whole range of the board of PT.UE ASSA to repay the entire debt to PT . Wijaya Karya based on the Limited Liability Company Law and Bankruptcy Law? 2. What is the remedy which can be done by PT. Wijaya Karya in obtaining all the rights that have not been fulfilled after the Supreme Court decision number. 410.K / Pdt - Sus.Pailit / 2013 ? By declared bankrupt, the maintenance of the assets of PT. UE ASSA switch to the curator. PT. UE ASSA’s bankruptcyin principle does not result in PT. UE ASSA loses its right to administer and control of its assets and did not effect in the cessation of the activity of PT. UE ASSA, since in the bankruptcy of PT. UE ASSA authority of the Board of Directors switch to the curator who can then act as the Board of Directors to manage PT. UE ASSA. Responsibility PT. UE ASSA is a reciprocal responsibility, so the company sentenced for bankruptcy, not the Directors as long as the Directors did not act unlawfully. There are several legal remedies that can be done to obtain the rights, PT Wijaya Karya can: a. Conducting a Judicial Review and b. Conducting an actio pauliana. The form of this thesis research is normative juridical, with typology analytical descriptive study, the type of data in the form of secondary data, data collection tools such as the study of documents, while the processing and analysis of data based on a normative juridical approach.]

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Profesi notaris Notaris ada dalam rangka membantu masyarakat di Indonesia, dalam menjalankan tugasnya Notaris diberikan wewenangan oleh negara. Pengawasan dan pembinaan diperlukan agar notaris tidak menyalah gunakan wewenangnya. Dengan berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang jabatan notaris, pengawasan dilakukan oleh Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia dengan membentuk Majelis Pengawas Notaris. Majelis Pengawas dibagi 3 tiga yaitu : Majelis Pengawas Daerah, Majelis Pengawas Wilayah, Majelis Pengawas Pusat. Menteri sebagai pejabat Tata Usaha Negara mengakibatnya Majelis Pengawas sebagai perpanjangan tangan Menteri. Notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya berkewajiban bertindak jujur, saksama, mandiri, dan tidak berpihak dan menjaga kepentingan para pihak yang terkait. Selain mengawasi, Majelis Pengawasi Notaris berwenang menyelenggarakan sidang untuk memeriksa dugaan pelanggaran dan mengambil keputusan. Jika Majelis Pengawas Notaris dalam mengambil keputusan tidak tepat atau memberatkan notaris yang bersangkutan atau tidak dilakukan pemeriksaan yang transparan makan dimungkinkan dilakukan upaya hukum. Namun dalam .tingkat putusan Majelis Pengawas Wilayah terdapat sanksi berupa teguran baik tertulis maupun lisan yang bersifat final, padahal masih terdapat Majelis Pengawas Pusat diatas Majelis Pengawas Wilayah. Dalam penulisan ini penulis mengggunakan tipe penelitian yang penelitian hukum normatif yaitu penelitian hukum yang digunakan dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka atau data sekunder belaka.

---

ABSTRACT
Notary is a profession which is exist to assist society in Indonesia, in which given special right and authority by law and country. In order to prevent abuse of power by notary, it is believed that proper supervision is necessary. With Act Number 30 2004 about notary function, supervision is conducted by Ministry of law and Human Rights which then form Majelis Pengawas Notaris, spread across the country in each district Majelis Pengawas Daerah , province Majelis Pengawas Wilayah , and federal Majelis Pengawas Pusat . Minister of Law and Human Right is classified into state administrative official Pejabat TUN , which then make Majelis Pengawas direct chain from the Minister. In performing their duty, Notary is obligated to be honest, independent, sharp and not taking any sides while keeping each and every party rsquo s interest protected. Moreover, Majelis Pengawas Notaris also has authority to conduct a hearing in where the objection is to investigate the allegation of code violation and thus make decision based on presented facts and discretion. Should Majelis Pengawas Notaris incorrectly judge or should the investigation is not conducted with transparency and accountability principle, it is possible for notary to appeal the above mentioned decision. However, in state of decision of Majelis Pengawas Wilayah, the sanction produced, either written or oral warning is final. This is deemed contradict with chain of command which stated that Majelis Pengawas Pusat is the highest command to make this decision. This research is conducted by normative method which is done by literature and library research, as known as secondary data research.

Abstrak :
Penelitian ini membahas mengenai kasus perdata yang diperiksa dan diadili di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Utara dengan perkara Nomor 305/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Utr. Pihak Penggugat adalah perusahaan yang bergerak dalam pembiayaan leasing, sedangkan Tergugat adalah perorangan yang telah mendapatkan fasilitas kredit dari Penggugat. Kemudian dalam perjalanannya Tergugat wanprestasi dalam hal menunggak pembayaran yang diketahui bahwa Tergugat sedang dalam kasus tindak pidana narkotika serta objek jaminan fidusia menjadi barang sitaan Kejaksaan Negeri Jakarta Utara untuk dimusnahkan. Penggugat melakukan gugatan dan sita jaminan dimana berdasarkan putusan Pengadilan Negeri Nomor 305/Pdt.G/2019/PN.Jkt.Utr., Penggugat dimenangkan dan kemudian dikeluarkan sita jaminan kendaraan atas milik Tergugat untuk diserahkan ke Penggugat. Adapun permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini adalah mengenai batasan-batasan putusan pengadilan pidana dapat menghapuskan hak kebendaan fidusia pemegang fidusia, upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh pemegang fidusia terhadap penyitaan objek jaminan dan peran notaris dalam melindungi kepentingan pihak ketiga. Untuk menjawab permasalahan tersebut digunakan metode penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dan tipologi penelitian deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian ini ialah perampasan dapat dilakukan terhadap orang yang bersalah yang diserahkan kepada pemerintah, tetapi hanya atas barang-barang yang telah disita. Upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh pemegang fidusia dapat dilakukan dengan perlawanan atau gugatan. Peran notaris dalam hal melindungi kepentingan pihak ketiga dengan cara memastikan para pihak adalah orang yang berwenang, objek jaminan adalah benar kepunyaan pemberi fidusia serta menambah klausul penyerahan secara sukarela pada akta jaminan fidusia. ......This research discusses civil cases that were examined and tried at the North Jakarta District Court with case Number 305 / Pdt.G / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in leasing financing, while the Defendant is an individual who has obtained a credit facility from the Plaintiff. Then in the course of the Defendant's default in the case of delinquent payments, it was discovered that the Defendant was in a narcotics crime case and the object of fiduciary security was confiscated by the North Jakarta District Prosecutor's Office for destruction. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit and confiscated guarantees which based on the decision of the District Court Number 305/Pdt.G/2019/ PN.Jkt.Utr., The Plaintiff was won and then confiscated the vehicle guarantees of the Defendant's property to be submitted to the Plaintiff. The problems raised in this research are regarding the limitations of the criminal court's decision to abolish the fiduciary property rights of the fiduciary, legal remedies that the fiduciary can take against the confiscation of collateral objects and the role of the notary in protecting the interests of third parties. To answer these problems used normative juridical legal research methods and descriptive evaluative research typology. The result of this research is that confiscation can be carried out against the guilty person who is handed over to the government, but only for the goods that have been confiscated. Legal remedies that can be taken by fiduciary holders can be done with resistance or lawsuits. The role of the notary in protecting the interests of third parties by ensuring that the parties are authorized persons, the object of guarantee is the true property of the fiduciary and by adding a voluntary submission clause to the fiduciary guarantee deed.