Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Yayasan adalah badan hukum yang dapat menjalankan kegiatan usaha untuk memenuhi kebutuhannya. Dalam praktiknya, yayasan melakukan pinjam meminjam dari pihak ketiga untuk menunjang maksud dan tujuannya, namun dalam pelaksanaannya yayasan tidak dapat memenuhi kewajibannya. Ketidakmampuan membayar utang menyebabkan yayasan dimohonkan pailit oleh kreditornya, seperti dalam kasus Yayasan Rumah Sakit Sandi Karsa. Kreditor Yayasan Rumah Sakit Sandi Karsa mengajukan permohonan pailit yang diterima oleh Pengadilan Niaga, tetapi dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Agung yang menyatakan yayasan tidak pailit. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kedudukan hukum pengurus yayasan dalam proses kepailitan dan asas hukum pembatalan pailit dalam putusan perkara Nomor 9/PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2023. Penelitian menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal dengan data sekunder dan analisis kualitatif. Disimpulkan bahwa kedudukan hukum pengurus yayasan tetap mewakili di dalam dan luar pengadilan selama proses pailit, tetapi tidak dapat mengurus harta kekayaan yayasan. Pengurus juga mempunyai kedudukan untuk melakukan pembuktian terbalik terkait penyebab kepailitan. Jika kepailitan disebabkan oleh pengurus dan dinyatakan bersalah maka pengurus secara tanggung renteng harus membayar ganti kerugian tersebut. Asas hukum yang digunakan meliputi asas keseimbangan, kelangsungan usaha, keadilan, kepastian hukum, paritas creditorium, dan paripassu prorate parte.

---

The foundation is one of the legal entities that can engage in business activities to meet its needs. In practice, foundations borrow from third parties to support their purposes and objectives. However, in implementation, the foundation may fail to meet its obligations. The inability to pay debts leads to the foundation being petitioned for bankruptcy by its creditors, as in the case of the Sandi Karsa Hospital Foundation. The creditors of the Sandi Karsa Hospital Foundation filed for bankruptcy, which was accepted by the Commercial Court but annulled by the Supreme Court, declaring the foundation not bankrupt. This research aims to analyze the legal position of the foundation's management in bankruptcy proceedings and the legal principles of bankruptcy annulment in case No. 9/PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2023. The study employs a doctrinal research method with secondary data and qualitative analysis. It concludes that the legal position of the foundation's management remains representative in and out of court during the bankruptcy process but cannot manage the foundation's assets. The management also has the standing to provide counter-evidence regarding the cause of bankruptcy. If the bankruptcy is caused by the management and they are found at fault, they are jointly liable to compensate for the losses. The legal principles involved include the principles of balance, business continuity, fairness, legal certainty, creditor parity, and pari passu prorate parte."

"Persoalan Kepailitan memang kerap kali menimbulkan perselisihan dimana pihak yang merasa dirugikan akibat tindakan orang lain yang tidak memunaikan kewajibannya sesuai di perjanjian sehingga menimbulkan kerugian pada pihak lainnya. Dalam penelitian ini, Penyelesaian melalui arbitrase internasional menggambarkan kompleksitas dan tantangan dalam menyelesaikan sengketa lintas batas. Implementasi Konvensi New York menjadi faktor kunci dalam mengakui dan melaksanakan putusan arbitrase internasional di tingkat nasional. Proses kepailitan diawali dengan putusan arbitrase yang memberikan keputusan terkait hak dan kewajiban masing-masing pihak. PT GM menentang putusan tersebut dan mengajukan peninjauan kembali di tingkat nasional, dengan argumen bahwa putusan arbitrase dilakukan dengan melibatkan pelanggaran terhadap hukum pasar modal Indonesia dan penyelundupan hukum. PT GM juga mencoba menggugat pembatalan putusan arbitrase berdasarkan hukum nasional Indonesia. Permasalahan yang diambil dalam penelitian ini adalah Bagaimana perbandingan pertimbangan Majelis Hakim pada putusan tingkat kasasi serta putusan arbitrase terhadap Kasus KT C dan PT GM dan Bagaimanakah bentuk perlindungan hukum PT GM yang telah memenuhi kewajiban kepada KT C. Metode Penelitian dalam tesis ini adalah penelitian doktrinal dengan tipologi penelitian eksplanatoris. Hasil penelitian menjelaskan bahwa Perbandingan Pertimbangan Majelis Hakim pada Putusan Tingkat Kasasi dan Putusan Arbitrase Dalam putusan tingkat kasasi, Mahkamah Agung menolak permohonan pailit yang diajukan oleh KT Corporation terhadap PT Global Mediacom Tbk. Hakim berpendapat bahwa KT Corporation tidak dapat membuktikan secara sederhana bahwa PT GM memiliki utang yang jatuh tempo dan dapat ditagih, sehingga permohonan pailit ditolak. Sebaliknya, putusan arbitrase International Arbitration Award No.16772/CYK menyatakan bahwa PT GM dihukum membayar sejumlah uang kepada KT Corporation berdasarkan pelanggaran perjanjian opsi dan beli. Kendala dalam eksekusi putusan arbitrase menimbulkan pertanyaan mengenai hambatan eksekusi dan perlunya reformasi atau perubahan dalam proses eksekusi internasional. Kemudian, Bentuk Perlindungan Hukum PT GM yang Telah Memenuhi Kewajiban kepada KT Corporation adalah PT GM dapat memanfaatkan putusan ini dalam upaya melindungi posisi hukumnya dan menegakkan hak-hak kontraktualnya.

---

Settlement through international arbitration illustrates the complexity and challenges of resolving cross-border disputes. Implementation of the New York Convention is a key factor in recognizing and enforcing international arbitral awards at the national level. The bankruptcy proceedings began with an arbitral award that provided decisions regarding the rights and obligations of each party. PT GM challenged the award and sought judicial review at the national level, arguing that the arbitral award involved a violation of Indonesian capital market law and legal smuggling. PT GM also sought to challenge the annulment of the arbitral award under Indonesian national law. The problems taken in this research are How is the comparison of the consideration of the Panel of Judges at the cassation level decision and the arbitration decision on the KT C and PT GM Case and How is the form of legal protection of PT GM that has fulfilled its obligations to KT C. The research method in this thesis is doctrinal research with explanatory research typology. In the cassation level decision, the Supreme Court rejected the bankruptcy petition filed by KT Corporation against PT Global Mediacom Tbk. The judge argued that KT Corporation could not prove simply that PT GM had a debt that was due and collectible, so the bankruptcy petition was rejected. In contrast, the International Arbitration Award No.16772/CYK stated that PT GM was ordered to pay a sum of money to KT Corporation based on the breach of the option and purchase agreement. The obstacles in the execution of arbitral awards raise questions regarding the obstacles to execution and the need for reform or change in the international execution process. Then, the form of legal protection for PT GM that has fulfilled its obligations to KT Corporation is that PT GM can utilize this decision in an effort to protect its legal position and enforce its contractual rights."

"Perjanjian penanggungan utang diatur di dalam Pasal 1820 sampai dengan Pasal 1850 KUH Perdata. Dalam perjanjian penangungan utang terdapat tiga definisi, yaitu kreditor, debitor, dan pihak ketiga. Pihak ketiga adalah orang yang akan menjadi penanggung utang debitor kepada kreditor, pada saat debitor tidak memenuhi prestasinya. Perjanjian penanggungan tidak dapat melebihi perikatanperikatan dalam perjanjian pokok. Pelepasan hak-hak istimewa yang ada dalam perjanjian penanggungan kerap menjadi dasar kreditor untuk mengajukan permohonan pailit terhadap guarantor. Seorang personal guarantor yang telah melepaskan hak-hak isitimewanya secara tegas dan syarat kepailitan telah terpenuhi, maka kreditor dapat mengajukan permohonan pernyataan pailit terhadap guarantor, baik secara bersama-sama dengan debitor maupun tanpa menyertakan debitor di pengadilan niaga. Pelepasan hak istimewa inilah yang merugikan personal guarantor.

---

Guaranty statements are regulated in Article no. 1820 ? 1850 of Indonesian Civil Code. There are three parties involved in a guaranty statement: the creditor, the debtor, and the third party. The third Party has a role of being the personal guarantor in case that the debtor failed to fulfill its obligation (breach of contract). The guarantor has the privileges. If the priviliges has been released by the guarantor and the requirements for bankruptcy petition have been fulfilled, the creditor can sue the guarantor simultaneously with, or exclude the debtor to be declared bankrupt in the commercial court. Personal guarantor can have an inflicted loss because his privilege relinquishment."

"Akta wasiat sering dinyatakan batal demi hukum dalam suatu putusan pengadilan. Hal ini terjadi karena pemahaman sebagian besar masyarakat atas pengertian wasiat hanya sebatas berdasarkan ketentuan Pasal 875 KUHPerdata yang bermakna luas dan tidak spesifik menentukan objek wasiat, sehingga secara tersirat menghalalkan segala kehendak yang diinginkan seseorang untuk diwasiatkan. Faktanya, keseluruhan ketentuan terkait wasiat dalam KUHPerdata turut mengatur pembatasan wasiat. Penelitian ini menganalisis keabsahan surat wasiat yang mewariskan kedudukan Ketua Pembina Yayasan dalam pertimbangan putusan nomor 1546K/PDT/2017 jo. 398/PDT/2016/PT.DKI dan seharusnya peran dan tanggung jawab notaris ketika berhadapan dengan klien yang ingin membuat surat wasiat tersebut. Metode penelitian yang digunakan ialah yuridis-normatif dengan studi pustaka dan wawancara. Hasil penelitian yang diperoleh terdiri dari: (1) Pertimbangan hukum majelis hakim dalam putusan nomor 1546K/PDT/2017 jo. 398/PDT/2016/PT.DKI tidak dikaji secara mendalam dan hanya mengacu kepada satu pasal saja dalam ketentuan KUHPerdata, surat wasiat yang dinyatakan batal demi hukum di tingkat kasasi sudah tepat namun penjabaran alasannya kurang mengacu kepada inti daripada pokok permasalahan sehingga perlu dilengkapi, surat wasiat tidak hanya menyalahi ketentuan Pasal 874 namun juga 888, 966, 1254 KUHPerdata serta Pasal 28 ayat (3) UU Yayasan; (2) Notaris dapat menolak membuat akta dan memberikan penyuluhan hukum bahwa objek wasiat yang akan dibuat bertentangan dengan aturan hukum yang berlaku, jika surat wasiat terbit karena ketidaktahuan notaris kemudian dinyatakan batal demi hukum, maka notaris tidak bertanggung jawab selama tidak ada tuntutan kepada notaris yang dapat dibuktikan dengan sanksi berupa penggantian biaya, ganti rugi dan bunga dari pihak yang menderita kerugian.

---

Testaments are often declared null and void in a verdict. It happens because the meaning of a testament is understood by most people only based on the Article 875 of the Civil Code which has a broad and non-specific meaning to determine the object of a testament, so it justifies all wishes that a person wants to be inherited in a testament implicitly. In fact, all the provisions governing testament in the Civil Code also regulate the limitations of testament. This research analyze the legality of testament which legate a Chief Patron position in Foundation based on the consideration of verdict number 1546K/Pdt/2017 jo. 398/Pdt/2016/PT.DKI and what should be the roles and responsibilities of a notary when dealing with a client who wants to make that testament. The research method used is juridical-normative with literature study and interview. The results of research obtained consist of: (1) Legal consideration of the panel of judges in verdict number 1546K/Pdt/2017 jo. 398/Pdt/2016/PT.DKI was not studied in depth and only refers to one article in the provisions of the Civil Code, the testament which was declared null and void at the cassation level is true but the explanation of the reason does not refer to the core of the problem so it needs to be perfected, the testament not only violates the provisions of Article 874 but also 888, 966, 1254 of the Civil Code and Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Foundation Law; (2) The notary may refuse to make a deed and provide legal counseling that the object of testament to be made is contrary to the prevailing laws and regulations, if the testament was made due to the ignorance of notary then declared null and void in a verdict, so the notary is not responsible as long as there is no claim to the notary that can be proven by sanctions in the form of reimbursement of costs, compensation and interest from the aggrieved party."

"[Skripsi ini membahas kedudukan hukum corporate guarantor dalam proses kepailitan di Indonesia. Dewasa ini belum terdapat pengaturan yang mengatur secara spesifik terhadap kedudukan hukum guarantor dalam kepailitan, terutama guarantor yang telah melepaskan hak-hak istimewanya sebagai Penanggung. Hal ini menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum, tercermin dalam perbedaan pendapat ahli hukum serta perbedaan penafsiran Hakim terkait kedudukan hukum guarantor.
Pengaturan yang berlaku saat ini juga memungkinkan bagi guarantor untuk dipailitkan tanpa dipailitkannya Terjamin atau Debitur-utama. Sebagai studi kasus, dalam skripsi ini diteliti perkara kepailitan PT. Jaya Lestari yang dinyatakan pailit dalam kedudukan hukumnya sebagai guarantor.;This thesis discusses the legal position of corporate guarantor in the bankruptcy process in Indonesia. Until now, there is no specific regulation governing the legal position of a guarantor in bankruptcy, especially for guarantor who has waived its privileges. This creates a legal uncertainty, portrayed in the differences of Jurist?s opinions and in the interpretation of Law experts in issues relating to it. The current Bankruptcy Law and Civil Law in Indonesia even allows a Guarantor to be declared bankrupt without having to declare bankruptcy on the Main-Debtor. As a case study this thesis highlights the case of PT. Jaya Lestari?s bankruptcy in its legal position as a guarantor.;This thesis discusses the legal position of corporate guarantor in the bankruptcy process in Indonesia. Until now, there is no specific regulation governing the legal position of a guarantor in bankruptcy, especially for guarantor who has waived its privileges. This creates a legal uncertainty, portrayed in the differences of Jurist?s opinions and in the interpretation of Law experts in issues relating to it. The current Bankruptcy Law and Civil Law in Indonesia even allows a Guarantor to be declared bankrupt without having to declare bankruptcy on the Main-Debtor. As a case study this thesis highlights the case of PT. Jaya Lestari?s bankruptcy in its legal position as a guarantor.;This thesis discusses the legal position of corporate guarantor in the bankruptcy process in Indonesia. Until now, there is no specific regulation governing the legal position of a guarantor in bankruptcy, especially for guarantor who has waived its privileges. This creates a legal uncertainty, portrayed in the differences of Jurist?s opinions and in the interpretation of Law experts in issues relating to it. The current Bankruptcy Law and Civil Law in Indonesia even allows a Guarantor to be declared bankrupt without having to declare bankruptcy on the Main-Debtor. As a case study this thesis highlights the case of PT. Jaya Lestari?s bankruptcy in its legal position as a guarantor., This thesis discusses the legal position of corporate guarantor in the bankruptcy process in Indonesia. Until now, there is no specific regulation governing the legal position of a guarantor in bankruptcy, especially for guarantor who has waived its privileges. This creates a legal uncertainty, portrayed in the differences of Jurist’s opinions and in the interpretation of Law experts in issues relating to it. The current Bankruptcy Law and Civil Law in Indonesia even allows a Guarantor to be declared bankrupt without having to declare bankruptcy on the Main-Debtor. As a case study this thesis highlights the case of PT. Jaya Lestari’s bankruptcy in its legal position as a guarantor.]"

"Penyelesaian sengketa melalui pengadilan adalah metode penyelesaian sengketa yang terkenal dan sudah lama ada. Namun pada nyatanya dalam dunia bisnis masih banyak yang akan memilih forum penyelesaian sengketa yang menurut kriterianya lebih terpercaya dan sesuai dengan bisnisnya dan memiliki risiko yang relatif kecil terhadap kegiatan usahanya yaitu salah satunya merupakan Arbitrase. Kepailitan adalah penyitaan umum semua harta kekayaan debitur pailit, dengan Kurator yang mengurus dan menyelesaikan harta kekayaan itu di bawah  pengawasan Hakim Pengawas. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, Penulis mengangkat tiga pokok permasalahan yaitu bagaimana pengaturan dan praktik permohonan pengajuan pailit di Indonesia berdasarkan putusan pengadilan arbitrase asing beserta analisa terhadap putusan permohonan pengajuan pailit di Indonesia. Bentuk penelitian pada skripsi ini Bentuk penelitian pada skripsi ini bersifat yuridis-normatif dengan tipologi penelitian eksplanatori preskriptif. Kesimpulan yang didapat adalah: 1) Secara keseluruhan, Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban memiliki pengaturan yang mengatur permohonan pailit yang diajukan berdasarkan putusan pengadilan yang telah tetap dan mengikat; 2) Pengaturan Undang-Undang Kepailitan, tidak secara spesifik mengatur mengenai pengajuan pailit yang berdasarkan putusan pengadilan arbitrase asing. Namun, dalam praktiknya, beberapa kasus mengenai pengajuan pailit berdasarkan putusan pengadilan arbitrase asing telah muncul di Indonesia, dan 3) Dalam Putusan Nomor 46/Pailit/2012/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst., penerapan ketentuan Undang-undang Kepailitan tentang pengambilan putusan Pengadilan Arbitrase Asing sebagai dasar permohonan pengajuan pailit di Indonesia dinyatakan tidak tepat.

---

Dispute resolution through general courts is a well-known and long-standing method of dispute resolution. But in fact, in the business world there are still many who will choose a dispute resolution forum which according to the criteria is more reliable and in accordance with their business and has a relatively small risk to their business activities, one of which is Arbitration. Bankruptcy is a general confiscation of all the assets of the bankrupt debtor, with the Curator managing and settling the assets under the supervision of the Supervisory Judge. Based on this, the author of this thesis raises three main issues, inter alia the regulations and practice of bankruptcy filings in Indonesia based on decisions of foreign arbitration courts along with an analysis of the decisions on filing for bankruptcy in Indonesia. The form of research in this thesis is juridical-normative with a prescriptive explanatory research typology. The conclusions drawn are: 1) Overall, Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligations has provisions governing bankruptcy applications filed based on court decisions that are final and binding; 2) Bankruptcy Law Regulations, do not specifically regulate bankruptcy filings based on decisions of foreign arbitration courts. However, in practice, several cases regarding filing for bankruptcy based on decisions of foreign arbitration courts have appeared in Indonesia, and 3) In Decision No. 46/Pailit/2012/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst., the application of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law regarding making decisions The Foreign Arbitration Court as the basis for the application for bankruptcy in Indonesia was declared inappropriate."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai penyebab dominan (proximate cause) dalam sengketa klaim asuransi dan membahas ketepatan pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam memeriksa, memutus, dan mengadili sengketa tersebut dalam Putusan Nomor 586/Pdt.G/2014/PN.SBY. Penelitian ini merupakan sebuah penelitian yuridis-normatif. Penulis dalam melakukan penelitian ini juga menggunakan metode analisis kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa (1) peristiwa yang menjadi penyebab dominan (proximate cause) dalam klaim asuransi Putusan Nomor 586/Pdt.G/2014/PN.SBY adalah kelalaian dari Nahkoda dan para awak kapal KM. Pemudi dengan tidak melakukan tindakan sepatutnya untuk menyelamatkan kapal KM. Pemudi beserta muatannya, (2) dasar pertimbangan hukum dari Hakim dalam sengketa klaim asuransi pada Putusan Nomor 586/Pdt.G/2014/PN.SBY telah tepat apabila ditinjau dari peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia tentang hukum asuransi dan hukum pengangkutan.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the proximate cause over insurance claims dispute and discusses the accuracy of Judge legal consideration in examining, deciding, and adjudicating the dispute in Judge Decision Number 586/Pdt.G/2014/PN.SBY. This research is a juridical-normative study. Author in conducting this research also uses qualitative analysis methods. The results of this research show that (1) The proximate cause in the insurance claim dispute in Judge Decision Number 586/Pdt.G/2014/PN.SBY are negligence of the Master and the crew of KM. Pemudi which did not take any action to save KM. Pemudi and its cargo, (2) The Judge legal consideration over the insurance claim dispute in Judge Decision Number 586/Pdt.G/2014/PN.SBY is complies with the prevailing law regarding insurance law and transporation law."

"Dengan berlakunya Undang-Undang Yayasan berikut peraturan pelaksanaannya telah diamanatkan kepada seluruh pengurus yayasan untuk menyesuaikan akta pendiriannya terhadap ketentuan dalam Undang-Undang Yayasan dalam jangka waktu 3 (tiga) tahun sejak berlakunya Undang-Undang Yayasan. Ternyata ketentuan tersebut sebagian besar tidak dilaksanakan oleh pengurus yayasan, termasuk Yayasan ?BS? yang akan diteliti penulis. Permasalahan yang diteliti dalam penelitian ini adalah : pertama, bagaimana status yayasan yang didirikan sebelum dan sesudah berlakunya Undang-Undang Yayasan?, kedua, bagaimana keabsahan Anggaran Dasar Yayasan ?BS? yang tidak sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Yayasan?, dan ketiga, bagaimana keabsahan kegiatan pendidikan Yayasan ?BS?? Jenis metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis-normatif, dengan tipologi penelitian deskriptif-evaluatif.Kesimpulan dalam penelitian ini adalah : status yayasan yang didirikan sebelum berlakunya Undang-Undang Yayasan sepanjang dibuat dalam akta notarial dan didaftarkan ke Pengadilan Negeri setempat maka akan memperoleh status badan hukum, sedangkan setelah berlakunya Undang-Undang Yayasan maka anggaran dasar yayasan tersebut mendapatkan pengesahan dari Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia untuk mendapatkan status sebagai suatu badan hukum, dan wajib diumumkan dalam Tambahan Berita Negara RI. Apabila anggaran dasar yayasan yang didirikan sebelum berlakunya Undang-Undang Yayasan tidak disesuaikan dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Yayasan, maka yayasan tersebut dapat dibubarkan berdasarkan putusan pengadilan atas permohonan Kejaksaan atau pihak yang berkepentingan.

---

With the validity of the Foundation Law and followed by the implementation of the Foundation Law has been mandated to the entire of foundation management to adjust the establishment certificate and act toward to the provision of the Foundation Law in 3 (three) years terms since the Foundation Law was valid. Obviously the most of the provisions were not implemented by the foundation management, including Yayasan ?BS? will be researched by the author. The issues will be researched in this case are: first, how is the status of a foundation which is established before and after the Foundation Law is applied? second, how is the validity of Yayasan ?BS??s articles of association which is not in accordance with the Foundation Law? and third, how is the validity of the education activity which is built by the Yayasan ?BS?? Type of research method will be used in this case is juridical-normative, with typology of this research is descriptive-evaluative.The conclusions of this research are: the status of foundation which is established before the Foundation Law is applied as long as is legitimized in a notarial certificate and registered to the local District Court, then this foundation will get the legal status, while after the Foundation Law is applied, the foundation act must be adjusted to the provision of the Foundation Law and must be legitimized by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to get the legal status and required to announce in Official Gazette Republic Indonesia (Tambahan Berita Negara RI). If the foundation was established before the Foundation Law was not adjusted to the provisions of the Foundation Law, then the foundation can be disbanded according to the court verdict on the petition the attorney or interested parties."

"Dalam praktik kepailitan, pelaksanaan pemberesan harta pailit seringkali terhambat oleh berbagai kendala, salah satunya ketika terjadi tumpang tindih antara sita umum pailit dengan sita pidana. Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengetahui bagaimana proses pemberesan harta pailit dalam hal terjadi sita pidana terhadap harta pailit dengan mengkaji kedudukan sita umum pailit terhadap sita pidana, serta mengetahui pula kedudukan harta pailit terhadap putusan pengadilan dalam perkara pidana dengan menganalisis putusan pengadilan dalam perkara gugatan lain-lain. Penelitian ini menggunakan bentuk penelitian yuridis normatif dengan metode studi kepustakaan. Dari hasil penelitian ini, dapat diketahui bahwa kedudukan sita pidana lebih didahulukan daripada sita umum pailit, sehingga proses pemberesan harta pailit harus ditunda untuk sementara waktu. Berdasarkan analisis terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Pada Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat Nomor 11/Pdt.Sus-Gugatan Lain-Lain/2018/PN.Jkt.Pst dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2019, kedudukan harta pailit didahulukan dibanding putusan pengadilan dalam perkara pidana, sehingga amar putusan yang menetapkan perampasan harta pailit untuk negara bersifat non-executable.

---

In the practice of bankruptcy, the implementation of bankruptcy assets settlement is often hampered by various obstacles, one of which is when there is an overlap between the general bankruptcy confiscation and the criminal confiscation. This research was conducted to determine how the process of bankruptcy assets settlement in the event of criminal confiscation towards the bankruptcy assets by examining the position of general bankruptcy confiscation against criminal confiscations, also to determine the position of bankruptcy assets against court decisions in criminal cases by analyzing court decisions. This type of research is normative legal research with a literature study method. The result of the research shows that the position of criminal confiscation takes precedence over general bankruptcy confiscation, therefore the settlement of bankruptcy assets must be temporarily postponed. Based on the analysis of the Court Decision Number 11/Pdt.Sus-Gugatan Lain-lain/2018/PN.Jkt.Pst and Court Decision Number 3 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2019, the position of bankruptcy assets takes precedence towards court decisions in criminal cases. Thus, the verdict in criminal cases that stipulates the forfeiture of bankruptcy assets for the government is non-executable

"

"Kepailitan mempunyai akibat bagi seluruh kreditur, tidak terkecuali Kreditrur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia. Pengembalian uang Debitur kepada Kreditur dalam hal Debitur dinyatakan Pailit akan sangat tergantng pada kedudukan dari kreditur tersebut. Kedudukan Kreditur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia adalah sebagai Kreditur Preferen. Hak ini tidak hapus karena adanya Kepailitan atau likuidasi Debitur Pemberi Jaminan Fidusia. Kreditur Preferen (Secured Creditors) dalam Kepailitan biasanya disebut Kreditur Separatis. Kreditur Penerima Jaminan Fidusia sebagai Kreditur Separatis sangat berkepentingan agar tetap dapat mengeksekusi haknya seolah-oleh tidak terjadi Kepailitan.

---

Bankrupt has effect to all creditors, neither nor creditor fich receive guarantee fiducia. The debt returning of debtor to creditor, in the casa of debtor are nonis as bangkrupt, it's depend on the position of creditor itself. The position of creditors which receives gauarantee fiducia is as secure creditor, their rights are not vanished, because there are bangkrupting and liquidation of debtor guarantee fiducia receiver. Secure creditors are usually called as saparatish creditors. Debtor guarantee fiducia receiving as separatish creditors fas responsible in other to can still execute as if as there are not bangkrupting."