PERLINDUNGAN IIUKUM BAGI KREDITUR PADA PERJANJIAN JAMINAN FIDUSIA DALAM PRAKTEK

Abstract

One of guarantee institutions, which are known in guarantee legal system in Indonesia, is trust guarantee institution. Trust means the distribution of properties based on trust and providing authority to debtors to have possession of the collateral although only serve as temporary user-borrower or not as the owner any longer. If this trust institution is related to the clause of Article 1152 of Civil Law Code, indeed, be contrary. Because according to the Article, collateral has to be given physically to credit provider. The purpose of this research is to analyze and to find out The Implementation of Legal Protection through Trust Contract in Practice for Parties and The Weaknesses in Providing Legal Protection for Creditors in a Trust Guarantee Contract. The research method applied in this research was through juridical empiric approach with primary and secondary data collection. The implementation of legal protection for creditors in a trust guarantee contract was started from the making of burden certificate of trust guarantee made by notary and continued to emphasize by registration of the certificate. The Act of Trust Guarantee (UUJF) strived to provide a protection technique for the interest of creditors. Unfortunately, the system was not applied by emphasizing concretely in a protection implementation system through execution on trust guarantee. Finally, it gave a choice for creditors to come to an agreement by giving additional cost and providing poor appreciation and not maximum regarding legal protection for creditors. The weaknesses in legal protection implementation for creditors in a concord agreement was caused by the regulation (UUJF) giving weak position for creditors such as no consistency in execution regarding the execution implementation. Whereas, the object of trust guarantee concerning the movable goods is very mobile so that there is possibilities of embezzlement. Instead, in a trust guarantee contract, frequently, there is no consistency of the importance of control by trust receiver on trust collateral possessed by debtors.