Fiduciary Certificate Research Articles

Dinamika Pembebanan Jaminan Fidusia Terkait Dengan Prinsip Spesialitas

The principle of specializing fiduciary guarantees in consumer financing agreements is one of the principles that must be fulfilled, in order to provide legal certainty to both fiduciary recipients and fiduciary recipients, particularly regarding the right to ownership of collateral. If the consumer financing agreement is not fulfilled by the principle of specialization, then there is no legal certainty in the agreement. Every object that is burdened with a fiduciary guarantee must be registered at the fiduciary registration office for the birth of the fiduciary guarantee. A new fiduciary guarantee is said to be born if it has been registered so that a fiduciary certificate is issued which has executive power if in the future the debtor defaults. So that the creditor in the settlement of default is not based on a power of attorney but based on a fiduciary certificate which has the same strength as a court decision that has permanent legal force. The methodology used in this study is the normative juridical methodology and the approach used is a conceptual approach and a statutory approach. The thinking framework used is descriptive method in this study.
 KEYWORDS: Principle, Specialization, Fiduciary

The Executorial Title of Fiduciary Guarantee in the Digitalization Era for Business Needs

This paper aims to address the issue of executorial title in Indonesia regarding the latest regulations in fiduciary whether it is still relevant to the development of increasingly advanced information technology. The number of fiduciary disputes in the Supreme Court brings out the fact that fiduciary regulation still does not fulfill the needs of the parties involved. With regard to that matter with the issuance of the Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the executorial title of the fiduciary certificate seems to be dwarfed. It is important that we identify and address the issues of fiduciary guarantee which are related to the regulation of the governance system in utilizing technology to facilitate and provide protection for investors to make the atmosphere of investment in Indonesia more interesting. The methodology that will be adopted in conducting this study would be a normative legal analysis of all laws and regulations regarding fiduciary guarantees that will provide insight to society and the government, especially stakeholders who are involved in the fiduciary guarantee agreement. We hope to recommend through this paper that specific legislation be created to improve the social and legal protection of business people in order for them to be able to conduct safely and freely business activities in the investment climate of the financial industry which has the potential to boost the Indonesian economic growth.

Akibat Hukum Akta Jaminan Fidusia yang Dibuat di Bawah Tangan dalam Kredit Motor

Purchasing motorbikes on credit involves third parties, namely consumer finance as financing lenders (creditors), while the party receiving the financing loan is called the debtor. The parties who bind themselves in the fiduciary guarantee deed under the hand do not have legal certainty for the parties, it is different from the fiduciary guarantee deed based on Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees that have legal certainty. Fiduciary guarantees are guarantees for rights to movable or immovable objects other than land and buildings which are not included in mortgage rights. Through normative juridical research, research has been produced that the legal consequences of a fiduciary guarantee deed made privately are the frequent executions of unilateral interests, namely the creditor when there is a breach of contract made by the debtor. It is urgent to make a fiduciary guarantee deed which is notarized and registered at the fiduciary guarantee registration office to obtain a fiduciary certificate that has legal force.

Kekuatan Eksekutorial Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor: 18/PUU-XVII/2019 Dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor: 2/PUU-XIX/2021

Introduction: The Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate has the same executorial power as court decisions that have permanent legal force. Execution through a public auction of the object of Fiduciary Security without going through a court. 
 Purposes of the Research: The Purpose Of This Study Is To Answer The Legal Review On The Executorial Power Of Fiduciary Certificates Post-Decision Of The Constitutional Court Number: 18/PUU-XVII/2019 And The Decision Of The Constitutional Court Number: 2/PUU-XIX/2021. 
 Methods of the Research: This study uses a normative juridical method by using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach.
 Results Originality of the Research: The execution of fiduciary guarantees is carried out when there is an agreement regarding the breach of contract and the willingness of the debtor to surrender the object that is the object of the fiduciary. If there is no agreement regarding the breach of contract and the debtor does not submit the object of collateral voluntarily, then the execution procedure of the fiduciary guarantee is carried out the same as the execution of a court decision that has permanent legal force, namely by submitting a request for execution to the district court. In addition, breach of contract also cannot be determined unilaterally. There must be an agreement regarding the breach of contract/default determined by both parties or on the basis of legal remedies (lawsuits) stating that one of the parties has defaulted.

The Meaning of Default in the Execution of the Object of Fiduciary Security Based on Law Number 42 of 1999 Concerning Fiduciary Guarantees

The Constitutional Court's Decision Number 18/PUU/XVII/2019) brings new changes to the procedure for implementing the execution of the guarantee object. The fiduciary recipient or creditor can no longer execute the object of the guarantee unilaterally, forcibly using the services of a third party to withdraw the object of the guarantee from the hands of the debtor or fiduciary giver who is in breach of contract. This research is classified as normative legal research, namely research that examines the legislation in a coherent legal system. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court, Article 15 Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3) are declared still valid and have legal force, the meaning of these articles is limited by the execution in the field, namely: Has there been an agreement on breach of contract (default) between the parties? Does the debtor have no objection to voluntarily surrendering the object as a fiduciary guarantee? Even though the fiduciary guarantee certificate has an executive title which means that it can be implemented as a court decision that has permanent legal force, the procedure or procedures for the execution of the fiduciary certificate must follow the procedures for carrying out the execution as referred to in Article 196 HIR or Article 208 RBg.. Keywords: execution, guarantee, fiduciary DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/81-07 Publication date: November 30 th 2022

Constitutional Issue of the Executional Power of Fiduciary Certificates as Equal to Court Decision

The enactment of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law is expected to be able to answer problems in the financing business, but it causes a loss of constitutional rights because it equalizes the executorial power of a judge's decision legally binding with fiduciary certificates. The analysis was carried out by Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/ PUU-XVII/2019; the was carried out by document study and analyzed prescriptively and descriptively. The results showed that the normative basis of the executive power on the fiduciary certificate was born from an agreement registered. So that it can be used as perfect evidence to prove the debtor in breach of contract, and the judge's legal consideration to declare the inconsistent provisions tested are based on not the existence of legal certainty in determining the time of breach of contract (default) and the mechanism for the execution of the Fiduciary Certificate

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP PEMBERI FIDUSIA DALAM PELAKSANAAN EKSEKUSI JAMINAN FIDUSIA KENDARAAN BERMOTOR RODA EMPAT (Studi Di BCA Multifinance Ringroad Medan)

ABSTRACTThe problems experienced by many financial institutions that provide credit and financing services, namely the transfer of objects fiduciary guarantee by the debtor to a third party. The problem is getting worse complicated, due to the transfer of the object of collateral by the debtor and other parties these three (whether through buying and selling, renting, or otherwise) will happen the intersection of rights between a third party as the ruler of the object and the creditoras the legal owner of the object.The problem raised in this thesis is the implementation of execution fiduciary guarantee object through parate execution due to transfer of collateral object fiduciary by the debtor to a third party. Legal protection for banks BCA multifinance in the execution of the object of fiduciary guarantee against the object of the fiduciary guarantee that has been transferred to a third party. Types of research used in this research is empirical juridical. This research descriptive research. The source of the data in this study was obtained by collect primary data and secondary data. Data collection techniques in This research is a field study (field research). Data analysis to be carried out in this study is a qualitative analysis.The purpose of the legal implications of the debtor is to transfer the object of collateral fiduciary to a third party in a financing agreement, resulting in the fiduciary agreement becomes null because in the fiduciary agreement the object Fiduciary guarantee is one of the important elements of a fiduciary agreement there is a legal consequence if an object of the fiduciary guarantee is lose their property rights.Legal protection for creditors in a fiduciary guarantee agreement born from the making of a deed of imposition of a fiduciary guarantee made notarial, and continues to be confirmed by registration with the Fiduciary Registration Officein order to obtain a fiduciary certificate. By registering the guarantee fiduciary, then the principle of publicity is fulfilled this is a guarantee of legal certainty to creditors in returning their receivables from the debtor.Keywords: Legal Protection, Execution, Fiduciary Guarantee, Vehicle Four Wheel Motor

Legal Study on Withdrawal of Fiduciary Guarantee Based on the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021

The practice of withdrawing fiduciary guarantees by financing institutions has often caused controversy because each party has a legal basis that can be used to maintain the goods resulting in the use of physical force to be able to withdraw fiduciary guarantee goods. These ways of withdrawal eventually became a problem in society so that it extended into problems related to human rights violations. That resulted in the emergence of a request for a material test of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary, especially in Article 15 paragraphs (2) and (3) and then the Constitutional Court issued Decree No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 about Fiduciary especially in Article 15 paragraphs (2) and (3) and then the Constitutional Court issued Decree No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 which contains that there must be an agreement between the debtor and creditors about the state of default and for that then the debtor is authorized to withdraw the fiduciary guarantee or willingly release the fiduciary guarantee item, if there is no agreement and willingness then the withdrawal order must be through a court ruling. Because it is considered that the verdict provides injustice on the creditor's side, it is further submitted a material test of the court's decision, and through The Court's Decision No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021, the Court stated that it rejected the request for a material test and upheld the previous verdict. Based on this, this study will legally review how the withdrawal of fiduciary guarantee goods based on the ruling and as a conclusion is the withdrawal that can be made by creditors against fiduciary guarantee goods are: (a) Make an agreement with the debtor where the debtor voluntarily submits the fiduciary guarantee to the creditor, for sale through auction. The terms of the sale are prohibited to harm the debtor, i.e. if the selling price is below the value of debit debt; (b) Request a verdict to the judge to be able to execute the item based on the registered fiduciary certificate, and for the next sale of the fiduciary guarantee at auction. If it is not done as such then the creditor is at risk of being reported as a criminal delik with Article 362 of KUHP for attempted theft (if the taking of the goods is unknown to the owner of the goods) and/or Article 368 of the Criminal Code on attempts to confiscate the property of others.

IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ON EXECUTION OF UNREGISTERED FIDUCIARY WARRANTYAT PT.FEDERAL INTERNATIONAL FINANCE (FIF) OF BENGKULU BRANCH

The execution of collateral in the financing institution as contained in the UUJF is clearly made by the creditor against the debtor whose is breach of contract, in which the execution of the creditor has a permanent legal forceand legitimate. However, for unregistered warranty in accordance with UUJFwould cause conflict. One of the conflicts that arises is the unprotected consumer rights. The purpose of this research is to understand and analyze the implementation of consumer protection on execution of fiduciary Warranty which is not registered at PT.Federal International Finance (FIF) of Bengkulu Branch. The method used was empirical juridical approach, by using qualitative analysis. Result of the research mentioned that implementation of consumer protection at execution of unregistered fiduciary Warranty at PT. Federal International Finance (FIF) of Bengkulu Branch was not in accordance with the provisions of applicable legislation where the execution of PT. Federal International Finance (FIF) of Bengkulu Branch was not accompanied by a fiduciary certificate and was not through previous mediation efforts so that the execution of non-registered fiduciary warrantyviolated the rights of the debtor as a consumer.

Legal Strength of Consumer Financing Principal Agreements Post The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18/puu-xvii/2019

After the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, fiduciary certificates no longer have direct executive power and the determination of promise injuries is not determined unilaterally by financing creditors but based on agreements between creditors and debtors. This certainly has an impact on fulfilling the rights of business actors (creditors) and ignoring binding powers on the principal financing agreement and fiduciary certificate. The purpose of this study is to find out whether the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 is contrary to the main agreement of consumer financing, and How the legal strength of the consumer financing agreement after The Constitutional Court Decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019. The type of research used is a type of normative research with a focus on the statutory approach and the conceptual approach. The results of the study explained that the principal agreement of consumer financing with The Decree no. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 there is a conflict (conflict) but only a pseudo conflict (not a textual conflict) because in terms of intent and purpose there is no conflict, but potentially less balance the legal interests of business actors. Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 has destabilized the existence of the deed of the principal financing agreement. The minimum limit of proof of the principal financing agreement is not perfect and no longer binding as the law for both parties and the deterioration of the evidentiary value of the deed of the principal agreement and the legal strength of the fiduciary certificate and the principal financing agreement is in the determination of the court. There need to be regulations that regulate sanctions if consumers deliberately delay their obligations to pay credit installments and the need for the participation of community institutions, business actors, and including the government to socialize.

Development of Micro, Small, Medium Enterprices Intellectual Property Rights as Fiducia Guarantee Object in Credit Agreement in Banking Institutions in Indonesia

Intellectual Property as a material right can be used as a fiduciary guarantee. This study aims to analyze the factors that influence banking institutions not yet utilizing the MSMES IPR as a fiduciary guarantee in credit agreements at the banking institution and to know the obstacles of the MSMES IPR as an object of fiduciary security and the Development of the Intellectual Property Rights of the MSMES as an object of fiduciary collateral in the credit agreement at the banking institution in Indonesia. The method of approach in this research is sociological juridical. Data collection was carried out with literature and field studies (through observations, questionnaires and interviews) of intellectual property holders and banking institutions. Data analysis was performed using qualitative descriptive analysis. The research found that factors affecting banking institutions not yet utilizing MSMES IPR as a fiduciary guarantee in Indonesia are due to the absence of standardization of assessments or determining the nominal value of IPR, regarding the risk of fluctuations in value of IPR, there is no market (seller and buyer) of IPR and procedures or mechanisms Execution of Execution of IPR guarantees. Development of Intellectual Property Rights of MSMEs as Fiduciary Objects in Credit Agreements in Banking Institutions in Indonesia, several things need to be strengthened in legal substance, Establishment of IP IPR Institutions, Notaries in making deeds, registrations and fiduciary certificates of MSMES IPR through the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, MSMES IPR Execution, Companies / individuals who will buy IPRs and Insurance Institutions as guarantors as well as the legal culture of IPR SMEs.

Implications of Executorial Strength of Fiducia Security Certificate after Decision Constitutional Court No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 Concerning Notary Assets

Fiduciary material rights are guaranteed. The collateral objects are tangible, intangible and immovable objects that cannot be guaranteed with mortgages. Fiduciary collateral is widely used by finance companies. Debtor defaults, the leasing party executes fiduciary objects unilaterally, this is considered contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Article 15 paragraph (2) and Article 15 paragraph (3) of Act No 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee is subjected to a material test. After Constitutional Court Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, Execution of fiduciary guarantees after the decision of the, after Constitusional Court, creditors cannot execution guarantee directly because executorial beslag in fiduciary certificate which have power same with court decision has been canceled. According to Constitutional Court’s decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 states that Article 15 paragraph (2) and Article 15 paragraph (3) of Act No 42 Year 1999 is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. After the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 states that the execution of guarantees cannot be carried out unilaterally by creditors, but must be through a District Court decision, unless there is an agreement on breach of contract between the debtor and the creditor and the debtor voluntarily submits the object of fiduciary collateral, this matter impact to lack of creditor’s interest to give loan with moveable object remember executory process need long time and many cost because execution object fiduciary guarantee must be district court decision. Notary as formulate’s agreement must be think carefully to response Constitutional Court Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 with strengthen clause in fiduciary guarantee deed based on credit agreement which has been made the parties so that occur balanced right and obligation between creditor and debtor. Therefore author take theme about Notary’s role to make Notary’s deeds especially fiduciary guarantee’s deed after Constitutional Court Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 with research’s method use literature research in the form of juridical data. The research is normative juridical and qualitative research type Research methods.

Notary Responsibility For Development And Registration Of Fidusia Warranties On Line Against Fidusian Recipients In Demak District

The implementation of making and registering an online Fiduciary Guarantee Deed in Demak Regency, the Notary must carry it out on his own without being represented by the employee, because the Notary must know for sure about the correctness and data input. Based on this, this research discusses the Notary's responsibility, the obstacles in fulfilling the Notary's responsibility, and efforts to overcome the obstacles in fulfilling the Notary's responsibility for the making and registration of the Fiduciary Guarantee Deed Online for Fiduciary Recipients (Creditor) in Demak Regency. Types / types of empirical juridical research, analytical descriptive specifications, data collection methods include primary legal materials and secondary legal materials, qualitative analysis methods. The responsibility of the Notary, starting from the making of the Fiduciary Guarantee Deed including the supporting documents in the making of the Fiduciary Security Deed, up to the implementation of data input in the context of implementing the Fiduciary Guarantee Deed registration is the full responsibility of the Notary concerned. The obstacles are: First, the internal factor is that there is an error in data input made by a relevant Notary regarding the procedures and procedures for making an Authentic Deed. Second, external factors related to the Credit Approval Memorandum (CAM) of the Fiduciary, Efforts to overcome obstacles, namely: First, obstacles from the online operational system, so if the data has been sent, the Fiduciary Certificate has not been printed online. Second, in terms of application an error occurs, then you can send an email requesting corrections and corrections to the email address. Third, in terms of data storage in the system, the notary will first perform manual recording. Fourth, in terms of the appearance of the statement letter and the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate, the Notary will re-enter the data that is not completely printed. Fifth, in terms of signatures, the notary will report the imperfect printing of the system.

Notary Responsibility For Development And Registration Of Fidusia Warranties On Line Against Fidusian Recipients In Demak District

The implementation of making and registering an online Fiduciary Guarantee Deed in Demak Regency, the Notary must carry it out on his own without being represented by the employee, because the Notary must know for sure about the correctness and data input. Based on this, this research discusses the Notary's responsibility, the obstacles in fulfilling the Notary's responsibility, and efforts to overcome the obstacles in fulfilling the Notary's responsibility for the making and registration of the Fiduciary Guarantee Deed Online for Fiduciary Recipients (Creditor) in Demak Regency. Types / types of empirical juridical research, analytical descriptive specifications, data collection methods include primary legal materials and secondary legal materials, qualitative analysis methods. The responsibility of the Notary, starting from the making of the Fiduciary Guarantee Deed including the supporting documents in the making of the Fiduciary Security Deed, up to the implementation of data input in the context of implementing the Fiduciary Guarantee Deed registration is the full responsibility of the Notary concerned. The obstacles are: First, the internal factor is that there is an error in data input made by a relevant Notary regarding the procedures and procedures for making an Authentic Deed. Second, external factors related to the Credit Approval Memorandum (CAM) of the Fiduciary, Efforts to overcome obstacles, namely: First, obstacles from the online operational system, so if the data has been sent, the Fiduciary Certificate has not been printed online. Second, in terms of application an error occurs, then you can send an email requesting corrections and corrections to the email address. Third, in terms of data storage in the system, the notary will first perform manual recording. Fourth, in terms of the appearance of the statement letter and the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate, the Notary will re-enter the data that is not completely printed. Fifth, in terms of signatures, the notary will report the imperfect printing of the system.

LEGAL STRENGTH OF FIDUSIA POST-DECISION COURT DECISION NUMBER 18/PUU-XVII-2019 ABOUT FIDUSIAN GUARANTEE

Not long ago, the Constitutional Court issued a decision in a judicial review case on Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee. The articles petitioned for review in the case are Article 15 paragraph (2) and (3) of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law which regulates the executorial power of fiduciary certificates and execution parates. This paper discusses the legal strength of fiduciary guarantees after the Constitutional Court decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII-2019 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee. The research method is normative legal research, especially research using the criteria for the level of legal synchronization, the researcher collects data consisting of secondary data in the form of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. The data collection technique is literature review. The data analysis was done qualitatively and draw conclusions from the writer using deductive thinking method. The conclusion is that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 of 2019 will have little or more implications for the auction business process conducted by KPKNL. This is because Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Fiduciary Law, according to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 of 2019, are fundamental norms. Ideally, the execution of fiduciary collateral is through an auction which can only be carried out by KPKNL. The author's suggestion needs supervision by the fiduciary recipient of fiduciary collateral controlled by the debtor. So that the weaknesses in the implementation of legal protection for creditors in a peace agreement are caused by, among others, regulations that give creditors a weak position.

Strength of Fiduciary Deed in the Implementation of Bad Credit Execution by Financial Institutions

As a result of a Fiduciary Guarantee that is not made a fiduciary certificate or in authentic form before a Notary Public, the Fiduciary Guarantee object has no immediate execution rights. When there is default or congestion from the consumer, the financial institution cannot execute the object of the guarantee. Financial institutions actually execute unilaterally without going through relevant government agencies and based on applicable laws. The making of a fiduciary deed by a notary is carried out through two stages in accordance with Law Number 42 of 1999 Concerning fiduciary guarantees, namely through the stages of loading and registration. Charges with fiduciary guarantees are made with a notarial deed, the notary is required to make a fiduciary guarantee deed by taking into account the procedure for loading, loading fees and the period of loading. After the fiduciary guarantee deed has been signed by the parties concerned, after that the registration of the fiduciary deed will be registered at the fiduciary registration office. As a result, the strength of the fiduciary deed made by a notary setting the position of the fiduciary deed and the role of the notary in making fiduciary deed. 1) Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee states that the person authorized to make a Fiduciary Deed is a notary, while Article 17 of Law Number 2 of 2014 amendments to Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning Notary Position stipulates that the Notary Public is only authorized to make an authentic deed in the jurisdiction or jurisdiction.Obstacles in the settlement of bad debts, namely the existence of resistance by the debtor against the execution auction plan that does not have a clear legal basis, because it is only based on unilateral recognition without proof or acknowledgment from the Debtor. Because legally the position of the debtor as the creditor holding the Fiduciary Guarantee is already strong, because all the guarantee documents are notarized and based on the law, the document is an authentic deed that has perfect proofing power before the judge.

THE EXISTENCE OF COLLATERAL IN CREDIT THROUGH PEER-TO-PEER LENDING SERVICES

<em>Recently, the total number of registered P2P Lending Fintech promoters has reached 144 companies after 17 fintech joined in one month and had a business license in October 2019. The status of business lisence conferred to platforms registered in OJK has met a number of requirements such as information security in the form of ISO 271001, digital signature and the principle of risk management. As an “umbrella organizationn” for all fintech companies in Indonesia, Indonesia Fintech Association (i.e., AFTECH) has 280 members, which 250 of them operate their business in digital financing system, online credit, innovation on digital finance, insuretech, equity crowdfunding, and etc. The rapid growth of the fintech industry may definitely make a huge contribution to the Indonesian people, especially for retail and unbanked segments. However, this rapid growth potentially evokes legal problems on its implementation as the implementation of credit on peer-to-peer lending does not bring the engaged parties into person but solely through online-access in addition to its less prudence of making transactions, a default of loans which injures the creditors may likely to happen. The importance of legal protection for creditors by selecting an appropriate mitigation of risks (e.g., fiduciary warrant) as a legal assurance for engaged parties, especially the preferent creditors in terms of possessing the fiduciary certificate when it comes to default.</em> <em>The result of this study with the fiduciary agreement, it will be prioritized in credit disbursement when the debtor turns into bangkruptcy and thus they are not allowed to use their loans for another purpose</em>

TANGGUNG JAWAB PELAKSANAAN PENAGIHAN PIUTANG MILIK X CREDIT COMPANIES OLEH LEMBAGA JASA PENAGIHAN

Financing Company is a business entity that carries out credit activities for goods or services for the productive and consumer interests. The problems encountered in this study are the constraints of the Financing Company when carrying out executions with fiduciary certificates, still having difficulty in collecting receivables from consumers. The next problem is responsibility for carrying out the work by the debt collector when carrying out fiduciary executions. This research is normative juridical, by approaching the case and the applicable laws and regulations. If Consumer in carrying out the obligation does not make payment, the Financing Company will execute the vehicle based on the Fiduciary Certificate, by first giving a warning to Consumer to immediately carry out its obligations, which is done because execution of the fiduciary guarantee is permissible by law based on Article 29 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. While in the case of cooperation between Financing Company and the Company that houses the Debt Collector, it is permissible based on Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Regulation Nb. 35 / POJK.05 / 2018. Regarding the legal responsibility itself is in the Financing Company. So it can be said that the execution of fiduciary guarantees by fiduciary recipients is permissible, and the finance company is responsible for the execution of executions, including those carried out by the Debt Collector. Therefore it is necessary to make procedures in accordance with the regulations so that the execution can be carried out properly and the Financing Company avoid legal responsibilities.

TANGGUNG JAWAB KANTOR PENDAFTARAN FIDUSIA SEHUBUNGAN PENDAFTARAN FIDUSIA SECARA ELEKTRONIK YANG TIDAK MELAKUKAN PENGECEKAN DOKUMEN AKTA JAMINAN FIDUSIA DIHUBUNGKAN DENGAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA

Fiduciary registration is currently undergoing a shift in the digital era which provides a value and convenience for fiduciary owners, But the problem arises when the fiduciary registration does not provide the value of legal certainty and office accountability that dares to issue a fiduciary certificate without the process of checking data and fiduciary objects based on the above description the author takes the title: RESPONSIBILITY OF FIDUSIA REGISTRATION OFFICES IN CONNECTION OF ELECTRONIC FIDUSIA REGISTRATION THAT DOES NOT CONDUCT THE DOCUMENT OF FIDUSIA GUARANTEE CONNECTED TO LAW NUMBER 42 OF 1999 CONCERNING FIDUSIA GUARANTEE, Problem identification is electronic Fiduciary registration fulfilling legal certainty and in accordance with Law Number 42 of 1999 and What is the responsibility of Fiduciary registration office as the party issuing Fiduciary certificate in connection with electronic Fiduciary registration that does not carry out inspection towards the physical data of the Fiduciary Guarantee deed linked to Law Number 42 of 1999. The formation of this system is a manifestation of the Ministry of Justice and Human Right to uphold the contents of Article 14 Paragraph (1) of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law (FGL) which reads: "Office of the Register of Fiduciary publish and submit to the Fiduciary recipient, Certificates Fiduciary on the same date as the date of receipt of the request registration ".1, the article have not be implemented perfectly on the same system. Article 12 paragraph (1) is in the Directorate General of General Law Administration of the Department of Justice and Human Right, Clearly the responsibility of the office in this issuance of fiduciary certificates must be in accordance with the rules for measuring fiduciary certainty.

IMPLIKASI HUKUM PENDAFTARAN JAMINAN FIDUSIA ONLINE TERHADAP ASAS PUBLISITAS SEBAGAI SALAH SATU CIRI HAK JAMINAN KEBENDAAN

The main material of the study due to the law of online fiduciary registration on the principle of publicity as one of the characteristics of material security rights, with the formulation of the problem What is the online registration of fiduciary collateral and What is the result of the legal registration of online system fiduciary guarantees for creditors' publicity rights. The conclusions are as follows: Ratio Legis registration of online fiduciary guarantees, is to improve the service of registration of fiduciary guarantees easily, quickly, and at low cost. Fiduciary registration to guarantee legal certainty and fulfillment of the principle of publicity, but online fiduciary registration involves a notary, only a notary who has a password to access the registration of fiduciary collateral rights, for notary registration of fiduciary insurance impairs public / public access to know that the object belonging to the debtor is burdened with fiduciary collateral for repayment of debt when the debtor is in default. The online system registration fiduciary legal consequences of creditor rights, that the registration of fiduciary guarantees with an online system, against creditors has guaranteed legal certainty by issuing fiduciary certificates, but does not guarantee legal certainty if it turns out that objects fiduciary collateral have been made public, so what happens is that fiduciary is repeated, even though according to Article 17 of the Fiduciary Guaranty Law, re-fiduciary is prohibited. The occurrence of this re-fiduciary was indeed complained by the notary because of the lack of publicity principles regarding the condition of objects being burdened as fiduciary guarantees