Mekanisme Penyelesaian Kredit Macet Ditinjau Dari Undang - Undang No 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia (Studi Kasus Pada PT. FIF Group Surabaya)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53027/jp.v4i1.100Abstrak
The implementation of the implementation of the Fiduciary Law is still far from shared expectations and is marked by the increase in cases related to fiduciary, one example when an external service (debcolector) executes collateral (motorbikes) without showing a fiduciary guarantee certificate this is due to lack of knowledge and understanding of the law by consumers (the community), external services (debcolector), even the police. So that the settlement of bad credit carried out by PT. FIF is not in accordance with the regulations of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning GuaranteeIn lending, not always the credit given by the bank to the debtor will run smoothly as expected in the credit agreement. In general, there are two factors that cause non-performing loans, namely bank internal factors and bank external factors. Where the bank's internal factors are divided into four things, namely inaccurate analysis; Collusion between bank officials handling credit and customers; Limited knowledge of bank officials on debtors' income; and Too much interference from related parties, such as commissioners. Meanwhile, the external factors of the bank are divided into four things, namely the customer deliberately not making installment payments to the bank; The debtor expands too much; The fraud by the customer using the credit fund is not in accordance with the intended use (side streaming); and Natural disasters that can cause debtor losses.The implementation of the execution system by PT. FIF is totally against the fiduciary law. This is because the existence assurance execution system implemented by PT. FIF uses a forced system which is classified as appropriation. This forced system was carried out on the grounds that the act had been legalized in the Fiduciary Guarantee Law, even though the Fiduciary Guarantee Law did not legalize the act. In addition, external debt collectors also do not carry evidence in the form of a fiduciary agreement, and do not have the authority to enforce the execution of property guarantees.Keywords: Fiduciary Guarantee; Bad Credit.Referensi
Buku :
Mariam Darus Badrulzaman, Dkk. Komplikasi Hukum Perikatan.
Mgs. Edy Putra The Aman, Kredit Perbankan Suatu Tinjauan Yuridid. (Yogyakarta : Liberty, 1989).
Mohammad Djumhana, Hukum Perbankan di Indonesia. Citra Aditya, Bandung, 1993.
Oey Hoey Tiong, Fidusia Sebagai Jaminan Unsur-Unsur Perikatan, Ghalia Indonesia, Jakarta, 1984.
Philipus. M Hadjon dan Tatiek Sri, 2005, ARGUMENTASI HUKUM, Yogyakarta:UGM pers.
Purwahid Patrik, Dasar-Dasar Hukum Perikatan (Perikatan yang lahir dari perjanjian dan dari Undang-Undang), (Bandung : Mandar Maju, 1994).
R. Setiawan, Pokok-pokok Hukum Perikatan, (Bandung : Bina Cipta, 1994).
Peraturan perundang-undangan:
Undang-undang No 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang jaminan fidusia.
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
2020-06-30
Terbitan
Bagian
ORIGINAL RESEARCH