Publication Search

People's Business Credit (KUR) is a financing program distributed by the government through banking institutions, including Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI), to support Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and cooperatives. In its implementation, KUR credit is not free from various problems, one of which is non-performing loans. This study aims to determine the factors causing non-performing loans and efforts to resolve them in KUR loans at Bank BRI Karanganyar Branch, Tasikmadu Unit. The method used in this study is qualitative research, with data sources derived from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Data collection techniques were conducted through direct interviews with relevant parties. The results show that the main causes of non-performing loans are divided into two major factors. First, external factors, namely those originating from the customer. This problem is generally related to the customer's inability to pay installments due to business failure. Second, internal factors, such as the failure of creditworthiness analysis by bank officers, resulting in prospective debtors who are actually unworthy actually receiving loans. In resolving non-performing loans, BRI Bank's Karanganyar Branch, Tasikmadu Unit, applies five main methods: (1) changing the loan interest rate, (2) reducing fines or penalties, (3) reducing the outstanding principal, (4) extending the loan term, and (5) selling collateral. Additionally, there are also settlement methods that involve a combination of these five methods, depending on the debtor's circumstances and the agreement between the two parties.

Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) is a legal mechanism that provides an opportunity for creditors and debtors to submit a debt reschedule plan to avoid bankruptcy. In the PKPU process, creditors have a role in determining the success of the agreement. In this case, concurrent creditors are more advantaged, because their position can be equal to that of separatist creditors who have collateral. This study examines how the existence of concurrent creditor sovereignty in the agreement process through PKPU, and to what extent the regulations regarding concurrent creditors and their rights are benefited in the cassation decision, especially in the Supreme Court Decision Number 751 K /Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024. This research is a normative legal research, with prescriptive legal approach and conceptual approach. The types of data used include primary and secondary legal materials, which are collected through literature studies. The legal material analysis technique uses the syllogism and interpretation methods. The results of the analysis, this study identifies how the protection of concurrent creditor sovereignty in peace through PKPU. And how the Supreme Court Decision in Decision No. 751 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024 pays more attention to concurrent creditors. In this discussion, shows how the regulations and legal protection of concurrent creditors, while discussing the Supreme Court Decision No. 751 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024 which gave rise to polemics in the interpretation of the provisions of Article 281 paragraph 1. However, it is likely to reflect the judiciary in considering all creditors and debtors, to achieve equal justice for all parties.

This study aims to (1) determine the legal provisions regarding the execution of fiduciary guarantees based on Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, (2) determine the legal limitations in the execution of fiduciary guarantees against problematic credit based on applicable legal provisions. The type of research used is normative legal research, using a qualitative approach. The results of the study indicate that although normatively fiduciary execution can be carried out directly by the creditor based on a fiduciary certificate that has executorial power, in practice various obstacles arise. These obstacles include the unregistered fiduciary deed, imperfect agreements, debtor approval, to the decision of the Constitutional Court which guarantees the existence of a default agreement and court involvement if an agreement occurs. This study concludes that legal protection for debtors is getting stronger, but the effectiveness of fiduciary as a credit guarantee faces new challenges in its implementation.

The purpose of the study is to determine and analyze the criminal law protection of embezzlement of assets (Boedel Bankruptcy) of debtors that result in losses to creditors, and obstacles to criminal law enforcement for embezzlement of debtors' assets that result in the formulation of the problem What is the position of criminal law Embezzlement of debtors on their assets that causes creditor losses and how to overcome them. The method used in this study uses the Normative juridical approach method, the data sources are secondary data and primary legal materials.  Research Results (1).  Legal protection of the criminal act of embezzlement of the debtor that causes losses to the debtor, after being declared bankrupt by a judge is a criminal act of embezzlement regulated by Article 372 of the Criminal Code and Article 400 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, because the fulfillment of the criminal elements is fulfilled. (2). Obstacles faced, Uncooperation of the insolvent debtor in carrying out legal proceedings due to the lack of level of legal awareness possessed by the insolvent debtor. To overcome this, the bankrupt debtor should comply with the contents of the decision of the Supreme Court case Number 2K / Pdt.Sus-Pailit / 2019 willing to submit the legality of access to the curator team that will resolve, and as a good Indonesian citizen must obey, submit, and obey the laws and laws in force in Indonesia.