Action criminal embezzlement object guarantee fiduciary duties carried out by Debtor
Keywords:
Protection, Creditors, Guarantee Fiduciary, Embezzlement, DebtorAbstract
This study aims to analyze the legal protection for creditors who become victims of the criminal act of embezzling fiduciary collateral by the debtor. In practice, debtors often transfer or pledge fiduciary collateral without the creditor's consent, which can potentially harm the creditor. The research questions in this study are how the criminal act of embezzling fiduciary collateral occurs and what legal protection is provided to creditors. The research method used is a normative juridical approach, analyzing Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security, as well as related court decisions. The results show that although the Fiduciary Security Law provides protection through the registration of collateral and fiduciary certificates with executive power, there are still obstacles in its implementation, especially when the debtor commits embezzlement. Legal protection for creditors can be pursued through criminal legal action based on the provisions in the Fiduciary Security Law and the Criminal Code (KUHP). This study suggests the need for tighter supervision by creditors and increased public understanding of rights and obligations in fiduciary agreements.
References
Adhyaksa, A. (2024). DOKTRIN HUKUM: PERSPEKTIF BELAKA ATAU MENCIPTAKAN HUKUM YANG IDEAL. De Jure Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Hukum, 5(1), 1–11.
Baldwin, R., Cave, M., & Lodge, M. (2011). Understanding regulation: theory, strategy, and practice. Oxford university press.
Budianto, A. (2020). Legal research methodology reposition in research on social science. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 9(1), 1339–1346.
Connaway, L. S., & Radford, M. L. (2021). Research methods in library and information science. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Ellinger, A. D., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2005). Case study research methods. Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry, 327–350.
Hamka, H. (2023). Pemidanaan Pengalihan Objek Jaminan Fidusia Tanpa Persetujuan Penerima Fidusia. Philosophia Law Review, 3(1), 1–13.
Hamzani, A. I., Widyastuti, T. V., Khasanah, N., & Rusli, M. H. M. (2023). Legal Research Method: Theoretical and Implementative Review. International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology, 10(2), 3610–3619.
Hermawan, H., Noerteta, R. S., & Theja, H. S. (2021). Independensi Hakim Memutus Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam Perspektif Perma No. 1 Tahun 2020 Jo. Undang-undang No. 48 Tahun 2009. Al-Qanun: Jurnal Pemikiran Dan Pembaharuan Hukum Islam, 24(1), 145–169.
Kamello, H. T., & Sh, M. S. (2022). Hukum jaminan fidusia suatu kebutuhan yang didambakan. Penerbit Alumni.
Lipscomb, M. (2012). Abductive reasoning and qualitative research. Nursing Philosophy, 13(4), 244–256.
Lohanda, C. D., & Kansil, C. S. T. (2024). Hukum Acara Pidana dalam Kasus Korupsi di Kementrian Pertanian dengan tersangka Syahrul Yasin Limpo. Jurnal Kewarganegaraan, 8(2), 1487–1493.
Mahkamah, A. (2024). Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. Putusan Mahkamah Agung.
Ramadhan, F. (2023). PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM TERHADAP PERJANJIAN PEMBIAYAAN DENGAN JAMINAN FIDUSIA PADA PERKARA PERDATA (Studi Kasus putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan Nomor 345/PDT. G/2018/PN. Jkt. Sel). Universitas Islam Sultan Agung Semarang.
Ridho, M. R. (2024). HAK CIPTA SEBAGAI OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA DALAM PERJANJIAN KREDIT BANK. KENOTARIATAN.
Simanjuntak, E. (2019). Peran yurisprudensi dalam sistem hukum di Indonesia. Jurnal Konstitusi, 16(1), 83–104.
Yasir, M. (2016). Aspek Hukum Jaminan Fidusia. SALAM: Jurnal Sosial Dan Budaya Syar-I, 3(1).
Yurizal. (2011). Aspek Pidana dalam Undang-Undang No.42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Media Nusa Creative.
