PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN
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 a...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
[Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada
2013
|
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1826047630782758912 |
|---|---|
| author | , Abednigo Isa , Dr. Paripurna, S.H., M.Hum., LL.M. |
| author_facet | , Abednigo Isa , Dr. Paripurna, S.H., M.Hum., LL.M. |
| author_sort | , Abednigo Isa |
| collection | UGM |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T23:13:57Z |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:generic.eprints.org:126454 |
| institution | Universiti Gadjah Mada |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T23:13:57Z |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publisher | [Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oai:generic.eprints.org:1264542016-03-04T08:25:21Z https://repository.ugm.ac.id/126454/ PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN , Abednigo Isa , Dr. Paripurna, S.H., M.Hum., LL.M. ETD 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. [Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada 2013 Thesis NonPeerReviewed , Abednigo Isa and , Dr. Paripurna, S.H., M.Hum., LL.M. (2013) PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN. UNSPECIFIED thesis, UNSPECIFIED. http://etd.ugm.ac.id/index.php?mod=penelitian_detail&sub=PenelitianDetail&act=view&typ=html&buku_id=66677 |
| spellingShingle | ETD , Abednigo Isa , Dr. Paripurna, S.H., M.Hum., LL.M. PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN |
| title | PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA
YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN |
| title_full | PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA
YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN |
| title_fullStr | PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA
YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN |
| title_full_unstemmed | PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA
YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN |
| title_short | PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN HUKUM PADA PASAL 11 UU NO 42 TAHUN 1999 TENTANG JAMINAN FIDUSIA
YANG MENIMBULKAN KETIDAKPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI PERUSAHAAN PEMBIAYAAN |
| title_sort | perbedaan penafsiran hukum pada pasal 11 uu no 42 tahun 1999 tentang jaminan fidusia yang menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum bagi perusahaan pembiayaan |
| topic | ETD |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT abednigoisa perbedaanpenafsiranhukumpadapasal11uuno42tahun1999tentangjaminanfidusiayangmenimbulkanketidakpastianhukumbagiperusahaanpembiayaan AT drparipurnashmhumllm perbedaanpenafsiranhukumpadapasal11uuno42tahun1999tentangjaminanfidusiayangmenimbulkanketidakpastianhukumbagiperusahaanpembiayaan |