This research discusses the power of unilateral execution carried out on state-owned collateral objects. There is a lot of gossip or uncertainty related to the status of state assets, in the sense that there are many legal rules that still intersect or overlap in defining state assets themselves. This overlapping of legal regulations has resulted in various interpretations regarding the extent to which the existence and definition of state assets can be applied, one of which is related to BUMN assets, whether they are included in state assets or not state assets. BUMN is a state-owned business entity which of course operates like a business entity in general, so that it carries out various legal and non-legal actions like business entities such as PT, CV, and so on. One of the BUMNs in the form of Persero took legal action by entering into a credit agreement in the form of cash collateral credit at BCA Bank, where it was discovered that the performance of the BUMN was starting to decline and of course this had an impact on the finances of the BUMN Persero itself, so this research will aim to provide a perspective on what the Bank can do if the state-owned company experiences default based on the applicable regulations. This research is using ‘normative-juridical’ as research type where the approach to the processing of legal materials is carried out by means of a literature review. Normative-juridical approach in this research used to analyse the power of unilateral execution of state-owned (BUMN) deposits in credit agreements with a cash collateral credit scheme at Bank X.
 
 
 

This research discusses the defamation that has been committed by Haris Azhar (HA) and Fatiah Maulidyianti (FM) who in one of their YouTube video uploads entitled 'There is a Lord Luhut Behind the Economic-OPS Military Relations of Intan Jaya!!! General BIN Also There!! NgeHAMtam' has defamed and caused false suspicion against Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan. It is known that HA and FM called Luhut 'lord'. Luhut also said that material losses do not need to be calculated, but morally, accusing me of being a criminal and being called a 'lord' is very detrimental to him and his family. This research will also discuss the defamation by Haris and Fatiah when viewed from the Criminal Code (KUHP), and Law Number 11 of 2008 which has been amended by Law Number 19 of 2016. This research uses normative / dogmatic juridical research methods. This research uses primary legal materials and secondary legal materials as the legal basis for completing this research. This research also uses the Statue Approach (approach through legislation), Conceptual Approach (conceptual approach), and Case Approach (case approach). In the results of this study, it can be concluded that the actions of HA and FM can be categorized as defamation because they have fulfilled the elements of Article 311 of the Criminal Code on slander and Article 318 of the Criminal Code on false suspicion. The advice in the form of legal opinion is that the prosecutor should be able to provide charges to HA and FM related to Article 311 of the Criminal Code on slander and Article 318 on false pretenses because this can later become the basis for the Judge's decision following the prosecutor's indictment.