| Summary: | Background and issues that have been raised in this study is aimed to determine the
interpretation of Article 11 of the Law - Law number 42 of 1999 on Liability and
Fiduciary Registration knowing Juridical basis for financing company that does not
charge Fiduciary is not included in the corruption as well as knowing the reason that the
Principal Agreement made under the hand can not be attributed to the State Losses in
Non-Tax Revenues (non-tax revenues).
The preparation of this thesis using the methods of literature (library research) to find
data data both primary data sourced from the opinions and thoughts of the resource
persons penelittian and also secondary data obtained from books - books, articles -
articles, internet sites, newspapers and regulations Regulations - Invitation relevant to
the issues raised.
From the research results it can be concluded First , there is a distinct separation
between the Basic Agreement and the Agreement Followup . For financing company
that does not charge objects with Fiduciary made in a Principal Agreement either under
hand or under Deed and the finance companies that charge to be made in the form of
Fiduciary Fiduciary Deed . Second, the financing company that does not charge
Fiduciary can not be said to have an element of corruption as referred to in the Act 31 of
1999 Act No. 20 Jo . Year 2001 on Eradication of Corruption with no reason to object
to the Fiduciary dibebankanya showed that the absence of movement of charge or
money with the potential into the state Treasury who is State property . Third , the
Principal Agreement is made in the notary deed or not an option for the parties to make
it fit the principle of freedom of contract and not contrary to the Law No. 42 Year 1999
on Fiduciary.
|
|---|