PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA PELAKU PENGALIHAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA TANPA PERSETUJUAN TERTULIS DARI PENERIMA FIDUSIA (Studi Putusan Nomor: 56/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Mnd)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51622/eksakta.v4i2.664Keywords:
Criminal Liability, Perpetrators, Transfer of Fiduciary ObjectsAbstract
The crime of transferring the object of fiduciary security is a crime in the field of fiduciary security which is
carried out by selling the object of the fiduciary security which has not yet been paid off by the payment credit
to a third party without written approval from a company as the recipient of the fiduciary. The problems in this
study are how the criminal liability of the perpetrator of the transfer of the object of fiduciary security without
written consent from the fiduciary recipient (Study of Decision No.56/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Mnd) and how the
judge's considerations are based in imposing sanctions on the perpetrator of the transfer of the object. fiduciary
guarantee without written consent from the fiduciary recipient (Study of Decision No.56/Pid.Sus/2019/PN
Mnd).
The Legal Research Method used in this thesis is a normative juridical method, namely the analysis carried out
to collect data by means of a literature study. This study uses primary legal materials, namely Law Number 42
of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees and this study also uses secondary legal materials in the form of
journal publications on law and various related literature to answer problems in the Study of Decision No.
56/Pid. Sus/2019/PN Mnd.
Based on the results of research conducted in the Study of Decision Number 56/Pid.Sus /2019/PN Mnd, it can
be concluded that based on the judge's considerations in imposing a crime against the perpetrator who transferred the object of fiduciary security without written consent from the fiduciary recipient, the defendant
has fulfilled the elements and violates Article 36 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees,
he is sentenced to imprisonment for 7 (seven) months and a fine of Rp. 10,000,000 (ten million rupiah) with the
provision that if the fine is not paid, it is replaced with imprisonment for 2 (two) months.
Downloads
References
Agus, Rustianto, 2015, Tindak Pidana dan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana, Kencana, Surabaya Andi, Hamzah, 2010, Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta
Gunawan, Wijaya dan Ahmad, Yani, 2000, Jaminan Fidusia, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta
Adhyaksa Mahasena, Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Bagi Pelaku Tindak Pidana Jual Beli Organ Tubuh Manusia, Universitas Udayana, Volume 7, Nomor 1
Aldo Octavianus, Hak Debitur Atas Objek Jaminan Fidusia Sebagai Hak Kebendaan Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia, Lex Crimen, Volume 6, Nomor 10
Budayawan Tahir, Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Menurut Hukum Pidana Tentang Daya Paksa (Overmacht), Universitas Narotama, Volume 4 Nomor 2
Sri Ahyani, Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Kreditur Melalui Perjanjian Jaminan Fidusia,
Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, Volume 24, Nomor 1
H, Tan Kamelo, 2004, Hukum Jaminan Fidusia Suatu Yang Didambakan, Alumni Bandung H, Zaeni Asyahadie, 2018, Hukum Keperdataan Dalam Perspektif Hukum Nasional, Hukum Islam dan Hukum Adat, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta
Mahrus, Ahli, 2017, Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta
Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
Pasal 36 Undang-Undang Nomor 42 tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia
Pasal 184 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana Pasal 1754 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata
Pasal 1320 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata
