Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA PELAKU PENGALIHAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA TANPA PERSETUJUAN TERTULIS DARI PENERIMA FIDUSIA (Studi Putusan Nomor: 56/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Mnd)

View through CrossRef
The crime of transferring the object of fiduciary security is a crime in the field of fiduciary security which iscarried out by selling the object of the fiduciary security which has not yet been paid off by the payment creditto a third party without written approval from a company as the recipient of the fiduciary. The problems in thisstudy are how the criminal liability of the perpetrator of the transfer of the object of fiduciary security withoutwritten consent from the fiduciary recipient (Study of Decision No.56/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Mnd) and how thejudge's considerations are based in imposing sanctions on the perpetrator of the transfer of the object. fiduciaryguarantee without written consent from the fiduciary recipient (Study of Decision No.56/Pid.Sus/2019/PNMnd).The Legal Research Method used in this thesis is a normative juridical method, namely the analysis carried outto collect data by means of a literature study. This study uses primary legal materials, namely Law Number 42of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees and this study also uses secondary legal materials in the form ofjournal 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 canbe 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 defendanthas 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 theprovision that if the fine is not paid, it is replaced with imprisonment for 2 (two) months.
Title: PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA PELAKU PENGALIHAN OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA TANPA PERSETUJUAN TERTULIS DARI PENERIMA FIDUSIA (Studi Putusan Nomor: 56/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Mnd)
Description:
The crime of transferring the object of fiduciary security is a crime in the field of fiduciary security which iscarried out by selling the object of the fiduciary security which has not yet been paid off by the payment creditto a third party without written approval from a company as the recipient of the fiduciary.
The problems in thisstudy are how the criminal liability of the perpetrator of the transfer of the object of fiduciary security withoutwritten consent from the fiduciary recipient (Study of Decision No.
56/Pid.
Sus/2019/PN Mnd) and how thejudge's considerations are based in imposing sanctions on the perpetrator of the transfer of the object.
fiduciaryguarantee without written consent from the fiduciary recipient (Study of Decision No.
56/Pid.
Sus/2019/PNMnd).
The Legal Research Method used in this thesis is a normative juridical method, namely the analysis carried outto collect data by means of a literature study.
This study uses primary legal materials, namely Law Number 42of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees and this study also uses secondary legal materials in the form ofjournal 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 canbe 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 defendanthas 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 theprovision that if the fine is not paid, it is replaced with imprisonment for 2 (two) months.

Related Results

Akibat Hukum Terhadap Jaminan Fidusia Yang Di Eksekusi Tanpa Persetujuan Pemberi Fidusia Diwilayah Hukum Kota Kendari
Akibat Hukum Terhadap Jaminan Fidusia Yang Di Eksekusi Tanpa Persetujuan Pemberi Fidusia Diwilayah Hukum Kota Kendari
Pemberian jaminan fidusia merupakan perjanjian yang bersifat accessoir dari suatu perjanjian pokok sebagaimana disebutkan dalam penjelasan Pasal 6 huruf b Undang-undang No. 42 Tahu...
Kepastian Hukum terhadap Kreditur Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dan Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021
Kepastian Hukum terhadap Kreditur Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dan Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dan Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021 telah membawa perubahan terhadap eksekusi dalam jaminan fidusia, sehingga posisi kreditur menjadi beruba...
ANALISIS KONTRAK ADIRA FINANCE DALAM HAL JAMINAN FIDUSIA
ANALISIS KONTRAK ADIRA FINANCE DALAM HAL JAMINAN FIDUSIA
Studi ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan mengenai Perjanjian yang penandatanganannya tidak dihadapan Notaris, padahal dalam pasal 5 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Ja...
Efektifitas Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia Dengan Penjualan Dibawah Tangan
Efektifitas Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia Dengan Penjualan Dibawah Tangan
ABSTRAC This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the execution of fiduciaryguarantee objects with underhand sales carried out by creditors receiving fiduciary guaran...
Perlindungan Hukum Debitur Terhadap Akta Jaminan Fidusia yang Cacat Hukum
Perlindungan Hukum Debitur Terhadap Akta Jaminan Fidusia yang Cacat Hukum
Fidusia merupakan istilah yang sudah lama dikenal dalam bahasa Indonesia dan merupakan istilah resmi dalam dunia hukum positif Indonesia. Sebelum berlakunya Undang-undang Nomor 42 ...
Akibat Hukum Penarikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia Tanpa Surat Perintah Pengadilan Oleh Perusahaan Leasing
Akibat Hukum Penarikan Objek Jaminan Fidusia Tanpa Surat Perintah Pengadilan Oleh Perusahaan Leasing
Abstract. A fiduciary security certificate has an executorial nature, equivalent to an inkrah court decision. Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2021 changed the p arate...
Pertimbangan vonis hakim terhadap tindak pidana kekerasan dalam rumah tangga perspektif hukum pidana lslam
Pertimbangan vonis hakim terhadap tindak pidana kekerasan dalam rumah tangga perspektif hukum pidana lslam
Domestic violence is a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination that must be eradicated. In Islam, such acts are forbidden. If this violence repeatedly occurs, it can...

Back to Top