Object Of Fiduciary Guarantee Research Articles

Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights as an Object of Fiduciary Guarantee on Banking Credit

This writing aims to analyze Intellectual Property Rights as an object of fiduciary guarantee, which until now cannot be said to be maximal, because banks and guarantee institutions have not been able to accept copyright patent rights as fiduciary collateral. There are no clear methods and regulations regarding the basis of Intellectual Property Rights themselves, one of which is regarding the value of the rights attached to intellectual property. This paper discusses the issue of intellectual property rights as an object of fiduciary collateral for credit in banking and how in the future patents and copyrights can be used as objects of fiduciary collateral in banking properly. The theories used in analyzing the problem are legal system theory, ownership theory and fiduciary guarantee theory. The method used in this research is normative legal research which was carried out as an effort to obtain the data needed for the problem. The data used is secondary data and tertiary legal materials. The primary data is used as supporting secondary legal material. And data analysis was carried out using qualitative juridical analysis methods. From the results of this research, it can be seen how the position of patents and copyrights as intangible assets should be used as objects of fiduciary guarantees in banking, by adding the words Intellectual Property Rights regarding guarantees to the Bank Indonesia Regulations (PBI). And what is the concept of examination and assessment of the economic value of intellectual property rights, especially patents and copyrights, which will be used as a reference in calculating financial and legal risks for collateral recipients in future implementation.

Liability for the Destruction of Collateral Object of Fiduciary Guaran-tee in Uninsured Murabahah Bil Wakalah Financing

Liability for the Destruction of Collateral Object of Fiduciary Guaran-tee in Uninsured Murabahah Bil Wakalah Financing

Legal Protection of Debtors for Fiduciary Collateral Objects Whose Debts Have Been Paid Off Based on the Fiduciary Guarantee Law and Government Regulation Number 21 of 2015

Fiduciary Guarantee is an accessory agreement that follows the principal agreement it guarantees. If the principal agreement ends, the Fiduciary Guarantee agreement also ends. However, the recording of the encumbrance and granting of the Fiduciary Guarantee contained in the Fiduciary Guarantee Register Book at the Fiduciary Registration Office can be crossed out or deleted (roya) if requested by the Fiduciary Beneficiary (Article 25 paragraph (3) of Law No. 42/1999 on Fiduciary Guarantee). Legal protection is provided in the event of full repayment or repayment of the debt secured by the Fiduciary Guarantee Object. Based on Article 25 paragraph (1) of Law No. 42/1999, this is one of the reasons for fiduciary abolition. The Fiduciary is obliged to notify the abolition of the Fiduciary Guarantee to the Fiduciary Registration Office so that the Fiduciary Guarantee can be removed from the Fiduciary Guarantee Register Book. The nature of the Fiduciary Guarantee depends on the existence of the receivables whose repayment is guaranteed. If the receivables are written off due to debt repayment or disposal, the related Fiduciary Guarantee is automatically deleted. If the Creditor does not perform the deletion, the Debtor may take legal action, either through litigation or non-litigation. An obstacle to legal protection for the Fiduciary is if the Fiduciary does not complete the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate online. Law No. 42/1999 and its implementing regulation, PP No. 21/2015, do not include sanctions for the Fiduciary or its representative if the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate is not done. This results in no legal certainty over the object of the Fiduciary Guarantee if the Fiduciary does not perform it, because the object used as collateral remains registered with the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate is still considered valid and cannot be re-registered in accordance with Article 17 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation No. 21 of 2015.

Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Barang Jaminan pada PT. Nusa Surya Ciptadana Cabang Soe dalam Perspektif Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia

The purpose of this research is to analyze the implementation of the execution of collateral at Pt. Nusa Surya ciptadana soe branch in the perspective of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning fiduciary guarantees. The research method used is empirical research so that the data sources used are primary data sources and secondary data. Primary data is obtained from interviews with sources and secondary data by visiting objects to obtain the necessary information. The conclusion of this research is that in the process of executing a collateral object at PT Nusa Surya Ciptadana Soe Branch, it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 paragraph (1) letter c and the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (3) of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The legal consequences arising against the debtor, namely the existence of an agreement so that the creditor in withdrawing fiduciary collateral goods is not secured by the police and not through a letter of determination through the district court, causing an imbalance in the position between the creditor and the debtor. Based on this research, the researcher suggests that the financing institution in withdrawing and selling the fiduciary guarantee object needs to make a derivative regulation of the Constitutional Court's decision governing the implementation of the execution of fiduciary guarantees in order to maintain a balance so that the proceeds from the sale of the guarantee object do not harm both parties can change the provisions in the Fiduciary Guarantee Law regarding when the debtor is said to be in breach of promise and the need to outline the mechanism of the District Court guidelines. For the Community, before agreeing to a principal agreement, it is necessary to understand the contents of the clause of an agreement so that the desired breach of promise does not occur.

Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Kreditur Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019

After the Constitutional Court decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the execution of fiduciary collateral created a sense of injustice and lack of legal certainty for creditors as money lenders. This decision eliminates the Creditor's authority to execute fiduciary collateral objects, as previously stated in article 15 paragraph 3 of the fiduciary law. As a result, the Creditor experienced problems in executing the fiduciary guarantee object after the Debtor failed to fulfil its obligations. The purpose of this writing is to find out what the ideal form of legal protection for Creditors is after the Constitutional Court decision Number: 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The research method used in this research is normative juridical, which only focuses on legal materials using a conceptual approach and a statutory approach. The results of this research are Constitutional Court Decision Number: 18/PUU-XVII/2019 which has made the fiduciary law lose its role as the law establishing fiduciary guarantee institutions. Fiduciary guarantee certificate has lost its identity because the executorial power over the object of fiduciary guarantee which is considered to be the same as the district court decision no longer applies if the Debtor does not voluntarily hand over the object which is the object of fiduciary guarantee to the Creditor.

Copyright as an Object of Fiduciary Guarantee from the Perspective of Law Number 42 Year 1999 on Fiduciary Guarantee

Law Number 28 Year 2014 on Copyright brings legal reform, especially for holders of rights to Intellectual Property Rights, especially Copyright. Although juridically normative copyright can be used as an object of fiduciary guarantee, it does not necessarily make banks easily provide loans. Because, the arrangement in the Copyright Act, requires further elaboration of implementing regulations related to guarantees for the Bank (as a creditor) to obtain certainty of return of funds that have been loaned to the debtor. The research used is normative juridical legal research that focuses on the review or study of positive law. The research approach is a method or way to conduct a study so that researchers get information from various aspects to find the issues they are looking for answers to. In accordance with the type of research that is normative juridical, then the research approach used in this study is the Legislation Approach, Conceptual Approach, Conceptual Approach and Case Approach. The result of his research is that Copyright as an object of fiduciary security is in accordance with Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees where Copyright can be encumbered by collateral in the form of fiduciary, but not on the object encumbered by the Copyright, but the economic value attached to the copyright. In addition, the Copyright must first be registered with the Directorate General of Intellectual Property of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights before it can be pledged. This is important because it is proof that the fiduciary is the holder of the Copyright. However, some provisions in the Fiduciary Guarantee Act are difficult to apply to fiduciary guarantees in the form of copyright.

AN IMPLICATIONS OF THE DEBTOR'S DEFAULT ON THE EXECUTION OF TWO-WHEEL MOTORCYCLES WITHOUT A FIDUCIARY GUARANTEE CERTIFICATE

This research aims to explain to the public regarding fiduciary issues as well as the consequences that the finance company will receive if it assigns a debt collector forcibly withdrawing two-wheeled motorized vehicles without a fiduciary guarantee deed. This paper uses normative legal research with a statutory regulatory approach (Statuta Opproach). The results of this research show that the execution of the fiduciary guarantee object cannot be carried out whether they have a fiduciary guarantee deed or not, except based on the debtor's voluntariness or based on a court decision which says that the debtor is in default, This is based on the decision of the Constitutional Court which said the sound of article 15 paragraph (2) of Law No. 42 of 1999 is unconstitutional.

Kepastian Hukum Kreditur Preferen Dalam Upaya Parate Executie Perjanjian Fidusia Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia

Fidusia comes from the word fides means belief. Juridically, the Fiduciary Giver has transferred his material rights to the Fiduciary Giver gives the Fiduciary Giver the right to control the fiduciary guarantee object. Based on UUJF, it has been regulated to the execution of the Fiduciary Guarantee Object if the giver of fiduciary fails to promise by the execution of the executorial title. Through the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 that in order to carry out an execution if the debetor does not wish to voluntarily submit the Fidicuary Guarantee Object, it must be requested to the Chair of the Court and the determination of breach of contract must have an agreement between creditors and debtors or through legal remedies. Then questioned the legal certainty of preferred creditors in the efforts of the parate executie. This legal research is a normative legal research. The analytical method for this type of normative legal research is a prescriptive method using a statute approach and a case approach. This study aims to determine the legal certainty of preferred creditors in the efforts of parate executie of the fiduciary agreement based on UUJF and the legal consquences and judges’ considerations which are the basis for deciding the case application for the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The result of the research conclude that legal certainty legal certainty has been stated in UUJF for creditors by executing Fidicuary Guarantee if the debtor fails the promise. The certainty is included in order to “Demi Keadilan Berdasarkan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa” means it has the same executorial power as court decision has obtained permanent legal force. However, in reality the execution process cannot be carried out automatically. so that the execution process becomes longer and it is quite difficult to achieve the executive parate. The Constitutional Court emphasizes on an agreement on when the breach of contract between creditors and debtors occurs so that creditors can carry out the parate executie. So that it is often used by the Fiduciary to take refuge in the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, which is actually the default clause agreed in the agreement.

Implementation of Copyright as an Object of Fiduciary Collateral in Indonesia

Objective: The aims of this study is to examine the application of copyright as an object of fiduciary guarantee in Indonesia, considering both the legal certainty aspect and a comparative analysis with other countries. Theoretical Framework: The Fiduciary agreement mechanism is that there will be guaranteed law and mortgage rights when there is an impasse. Based on a huge need, it is necessary to offset with provision clear and complete laws governing institution guarantee. Method: This study is normative legal research that produces prescriptive analytics of the legal issues raised. Study This uses approach laws and approaches producing a conceptual something draft where is Copyright can made as an object guarantee fiduciary. Results: The results of this study indicate that Copyright including in object guarantee fiduciary that has fulfilled all elements and terms for become object guarantee fiduciary, then the Copyright possible for made object debt guarantee form guarantee fiduciary. Conclusions: Application rights created as object guarantee fiduciaries in Indonesia are still hampered because regulation legislation has yet to be comprehensive. To sum it up, the types of objects are fiduciary collateral objects. Copyright, on the one hand, is included in the realm of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Similar properties with the right property in general (can be transferred and owned mark the economy).

Implementation of Online Fiduciary Security Registration in Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 9 of 2013

In Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 9 of 2013, online registration of fiduciary guarantees has been regulated. The purpose of writing this article is to gain an understanding of the implementation of this system. In addition, another objective is to gain a better understanding of the online fiduciary registration process, as well as the supporting components and barriers that occur during the process. This research utilizes a statutory and factual approach. A guarantee of legal certainty has been provided through the registration of collateral with the object of fiduciary guarantee through computer media and the internet. One of the barriers to registering fiduciary guarantees electronically and connected to the internet is slow internet speed and interruptions. Many financing institutions do not register fiduciary guarantees due to the high cost of making the deed and registering it. As a result, creditors will not have preference rights over unregistered fiduciary guarantees.

Legal Certainty on the Execution of a Fiduciary Whose Movable Object Has Been Transferred to Third Parties

The debtor does not have the legality or rights before the law to transfer the fiduciary guarantee object to a third party and the transfer of the fiduciary guarantee object without the approval of the creditor becomes invalid. This compensation is because the debtor has committed an unlawful act, therefore it requires innovation or renewal debt in this case the old debt is removed and replaced with a new debt in accordance with Chapter 1413 Civil Code. Fiduciary Guarantee Act Should provide more specific arrangements regarding the position of objects that have been made object fiduciary guarantee because things made object Collateral are the main key in terms of providing guarantees from debtors to creditors. Given the fact that there are still many of them constraint-obstacles faced by creditors during the execution process of fiduciary collateral objects.

TINJAUAN KOMPARATIF ANTARA UNDANG-UNDANG HAK CIPTA NO No.19 Tahun 2002 TENTANG HAK CIPTA DENGAN UU No. 28 Tahun 2014 TENTANG HAK CIPTA

This study aims to examine normatively what are the differences between the old and new Copyright Laws. This research is normative legal research, namely research based on written laws and regulations and various literature related to this problem. There are several differences in the arrangements in the new and old Copyright Law, namely that copyright protection is carried out for a longer period of time. Better protection of the economic rights of creators and/or owners of related rights, including limiting the transfer of economic rights in the form of sold flats. Effective dispute resolution through mediation, arbitration or court processes, as well as the application of complaint offenses for criminal prosecution. The trading place manager is responsible for the point of sale and/or copyright infringement and/or related rights in the shopping center they manage. Copyright as an intangible movable object can be used as a fiduciary guarantee object. The minister is given the authority to delete works that have been registered, if the creation violates religious norms, moral norms, public order, state defense and security, as well as statutory provisions. Authors, copyright holders, owners of related rights become members of the Collective Management Organization in order to collect fees or royalties. Authors and/or related rights owners receive royalty payments for creations or related rights products made in an official relationship and used commercially. The Collective Management Institution whose function is to collect and manage the economic rights of creators and owners of related rights is required to submit an application for an operational permit to the Minister. The use of copyright and related rights in multimedia means to respond to developments in information and communication technology.

Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia Setelah Adanya Keputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dan Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021

Public interest in fiduciary guarantees is increasing and creates opportunities for several problems to occur, such as the execution of fiduciary guarantees when the debtor breach the contract. In the execution process, the creditors often done an arbitrary action that cause the debtor suffers a loss. The polemic over the execution of fiduciary guarantees has led to a judicial review of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law. From the judicial review, MK Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 and MK Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021 were issued. On the other hand, the decision is considered to have caused a loss to the creditor. The law is expected to create justice and provide legal certainty to all people. The author uses a normative juridical method to further examine legal certainty for creditors regarding the existence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 and the Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021 in carrying out the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects. Execution of fiduciary guarantees must still be carried out by creditors in accordance with Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees if they fulfill the conditions in the form of an agreement about a breach of contract and secondly, namely the fiduciary giver (debtor) voluntarily surrenders the fiduciary guarantee object in the context of execution. With the Constitutional Court's decision, it is hoped that the agreement between the creditor and the debtor will be made in more detail, especially on the point of default of the debtor.

Legalitas Eksekusi Terhadap Objek Jaminan Fidusia Yang Dialihkan Pihak Konsumen Tanpa Sepengetahuan Pihak Leasing

asically the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects has been regulated in Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, specifically the procedure for executing fiduciary guarantee objects. Fiduciary collateral objects in the form of movable objects that are transferred by consumers (fiduciary givers) to third parties without the knowledge of the leasing party (fiduciary recipients) are an unlawful act, thus causing losses to fiduciary recipients. Based on Article 23 paragraph (2) UUJF, the fiduciary giver is prohibited from transferring, pawning, or renting to other parties objects that are objects of fiduciary guarantees that are not inventory objects, except with prior written approval from the fiduciary recipient. Conceptually, fiduciary guarantees are a form of legal relationship based on trust. Trust in this case is that the fiduciary recipient believes in giving part of the property rights to the fiduciary giver, until the fiduciary giver completes the installments of the object. So the fiduciary recipient still has the right to the object, which if one day the fiduciary giver breaks his promise, commits an unlawful act and there is no good faith, the fiduciary recipient can execute the fiduciary guarantee object.

The Position of Creditors in Consumer Financing Agreements Due to Fiducian Guarantee Not Registered

Research with the title creditor position in consumer financing agreements as a result of fiduciary guarantees not being registered, will raise two problems as follows, first, what are the characteristics of consumer financing agreements with fiduciary guarantees, and second, how default is non-fulfillment of achievements or obligations set by certain parties in an engagement. The methodology used in analyzing the problems in this study uses a normative juridical method with two approaches, namely the statutory approach and the concept approach, to produce an in-depth analysis. Based on the discussion that has been carried out in the previous chapter, the following conclusions can be formulated: First, that the characteristics of consumer financing agreements with fiduciary guarantees. The agreement is made by default the contents of the agreement, and the agreement is the principal agreement. Furthermore, it is bound by a fiduciary guarantee agreement which is an assecoir agreement (additional agreement) to the main agreement. After an agreement is reached, then the fiduciary guarantee will be charged and the fiduciary guarantee will be registered in accordance with Government Regulation No. 21 of 2015. The position of the creditor does not register the fiduciary guarantee object as a concurrent creditor. Second, default is the non-fulfillment of achievements or obligations set by certain parties in an engagement. Default in the guarantee is said to cancel the guarantee agreement, and only the main agreement applies. The implementation of the execution of fiduciary guarantees can be done in 3 ways, in accordance with article 29 UUJF, the 3 ways are by means of executorial titles, parateexecutie and private sales. Legal protection for debtors in the forced withdrawal of fiduciary collateral objects that are not registered, namely there are preventive and repressive protections. And the settlement can be done peacefully (kindly), win-win solution or through consumer dispute resolution institutions such as BPSK.

Hak Cipta sebagai Objek Jaminan Fidusia dalam Pembiayaan Mudharabah pada Perbankan Syariah

The Fatwa (decision) of the National Sharia Council Number 7 of 2000 on Mudharabah asserts that shahibul maal are allowed to ask for guarantees from mudharibs. Article 16 paragraph (3) Law no. 28 of 2014 on Copyright has also stated that copyright can be used as an object of fiduciary guarantee. As a result of this provision, copyright can legally be used as an object of collateral. However, in terms of implementation in society, this cannot be done because it appears to be unfair and there is uncertainty in assessing value. Sharia principles prioritize justice and certainty in every aspect, of course this is in direct conflict with sharia principles. This research uses a normative juridical research method. The results of this research indicate that copyright as an object of fiduciary security in sharia banking cannot yet be used, because there is no institution that assesses the value of copyright, which results in the value of copyright being unclear. In other words, if this is implemented it will violate existing sharia principles

The National Collective Management Institute (LMKN) as an Appraiser of Economic Value in the Binding of Music and Song Copyrights as Objects of Fiduciary Guarantees

One of the creations protected by copyright is songs and/or music. Legal protection for them is a necessity in order to create a conducive climate to the development of music industry in Indonesia. In order to facilitate song and/or music writers with better control over their works, they can appoint representatives to regulate the management of their royalty, in this case LMKN (The National Collective Management Institute). Law number 28 of 2014 concerning copyrights regulates that copyright can be used as an object of fiduciary guarantee. However, its use is still hampered by the fact that the economic value of music and song copyrights cannot be determined easily, especially if it is used for fiduciary guarantee. Most banks do not accept it for loan collateral. The objective of this research was to analyze the roles of LMKN as the determiner of the economic values of song and music copyrights for the purpose of binding them for objects of fiduciary guarantee. This normative study uses statutory approach, conceptual approach, analytical approach, and futuristic approach. The determination of the economic values of song and music copyrights can be done by LMKN, a one- stop service institution that collects the royalty of music and song in Indonesia. The National Collective Management Institute (hereinafter briefly referred to as LMKN) as an institution that can provide an appraiser of the economic value of Music and Song Copyrights. The use of SILM (a music and song information system and data center) can help the estimation of music and song’s economic value based on the royalty accepted by the art’s creator or copyright holder. The amount of royalty can determine the binding of music and song copyrights for the objects of fiduciary guarantee.

Legal Implications of Not Performing Roya Fiduciary Guarantee by the Creditor

The purpose of this research is to find out and analyze the obstacles of the creditor not doing roya fiduciary when the debtor's debt is paid off, legal protection to the debtor if the creditor does not do roya fiduciary guarantee and the legal implications of not doing roya fiduciary at PT Verena Multi Finance Medan City. This type of research is normative juridical legal research, the nature of the research is descriptive analysis, the techniques used are library research and field research. The results of the study state that the obstacles of creditors in carrying out fiduciary security roya are constraints on the removal system and constraints on legal arrangements. Legal protection to the debtor if the creditor does not make a fiduciary guarantee roya is stated in Article 25 paragraph (3) of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law that upon the abolition of the fiduciary guarantee the fiduciary recipient notifies the Fiduciary Registration Office of the abolition of the fiduciary guarantee by attaching a statement regarding the abolition of debt. The legal implication of not doing fiduciary roya at PT Verena Multi Finance Medan City is that the object of fiduciary guarantee that has not been royaed cannot be used as collateral if the object of the guarantee is to be re-guaranteed as an object of fiduciary guarantee, then the object must be royaed first.

OBJECTIVE RIGHTS FOR FINANCING COMPANIES AS FIDUCIARY GUARANTEE HOLDER

The purpose of this research is to explain the objective rights of the Fiduciary Guarantee in the Financing Company. This research uses a normative method using primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials with descriptive analysis and inductive drawing conclusions. As it is known that the Fiduciary Guarantee will basically continue to bind to the Fiduciary Guarantee Object. Fiduciary guarantees given to Financing Companies as creditors receiving fiduciary rights are granted imperfectly. The agreement usually separates the ownership documents that are authorized to the creditor receiving the fiduciary and the object of the guarantee to the debtor providing the fiduciary. The imperfect objective rights have led to a lot of speculation that the owner of the object is the owner who fully controls the object without regard to the existence of ownership documents. For this reason, sometimes finance companies have difficulty in executing the fiduciary guarantee object. The results of the research show that material rights will always follow wherever the owner of the object is, but in this short study it can be seen that every object that is still guaranteed status has a lien which will continue to be attached until the object is paid off by the debtor.

Legal Protection for Creditors Regarding Default and Unilateral Transfer of Fiduciary Guarantee Vehicles Based on the Principle of Justice

Indonesian people generally buy private vehicles by using credit facilities or making monthly payments to finance companies to own their vehicles. Vehicles purchased on credit are bound by using fiduciary guarantees prone to being pawned, rented out and transferred by the debtor unilaterally. The reason was due to default so that the fiduciary guarantee vehicle was diverted so that it could be confiscated by POLRI investigators to be used as evidence. As a result of the unilateral transfer of the debtor, the creditor suffers a loss, so that the creditor must be legally protected. The purpose of this research is to find out and analyze the legal protection for credit related to violations and diversion of vehicles based on the principle of justice. The method in this research is qualitative research with empirical and normative juridical approaches. Empirical juridical research prioritizes secondary data, books, laws and regulations and examines positive legal principles from literary data and comparative law. The fiduciary giver must be responsible, carry out his obligations and keep the collateral object under his control. However, in reality it does not rule out the possibility of the Fiduciary Guarantee object changing hands or transferring control to a third party because it is transferred by the debtor, usually due to economic factors. The existence of Law no. 42 of 1999 concerning guarantees in Indonesia which are lex specialis derogat legi general, is one of the legal principles which implies that specific legal rules will override general legal rules.