The Experts below are selected from a list of 5370 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Andika Y, Rainidya Nada - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
UPAYA PERUSAHAAN Leasing UNTUK MENDAPATKAN HAKNYA PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019
2020Co-Authors: Andika Y, Rainidya NadaAbstract:This paper is titled about how Financing Institution’s growth in Indonesia lately. Leasing is a part of Financing Institution that’s been lacking lately. Therefore, in late year of 2019 The Constitutional Court has declared The Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 which, in that sentence court is written that The Constitutional Court had some doubts about the Indonesia’s Regulation of Act Number 42 of 1999 line 15, and it’s also written that not any of Leasing Company is allowed to do their assurance execution anymore, except to do it in the court, and another term is that the lessee’s sides have to be agreed with their default that they have been done. This was a juridical normative research which explores any legal issues in society that approached by legal principles and positive law. If the creditors and debtors have fulfilled all of those conditions that written in The Sentence Court so that, the creditors will able to get their rights based on the rules in Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019
Tajudin Ijud - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ANALISIS YURIDIS PENGAMBILAN SECARA PAKSA KENDARAAN DEBITUR YANG WANPRESTASI OLEH PERUSAHAAN Leasing PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PPU-XVII/2019 DALAM PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PIDANA
'Fakultas Hukum UNPAD (FHUNPAD)', 2021Co-Authors: Perwitasari Rina, Suseno Sigid, Tajudin IjudAbstract:ABSTRAKPengambilan paksa kendaraan bermotor oleh perusahaan Leasing merupakan hal yang merugikan konsumen terlebih adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 yang menyatakan adanya pelarangan tindakan tersebut. Namun dilain sisi, penarikan tersebut dilakukan karena konsumen melakukan wanprestasi dengan tidak membayarnya cicilan bulanan kendaraan bermotor. Pada dasarnya meskipun tindakan konsumen merupakan perbuatan wanprestasi, namun tindakan paksa yang dilakukan perusahaan Leasing tersebut cenderung dapat diklasifikasikan sebagai suatu tindak pidana. Metode penelitian yang dilakukan adalah spesifikasi penelitian menggunakan deskriptif analitis. Metode pendekatan menggunakan yuridis normatif. Teknik pengumpulan data yang akan digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah studi dokumen. Metode analisis data adalah normatif kualitatif. Berdasarkan analisis yang penulis lakukan, maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa tindakan pengambilan secara paksa kendaraan debitur yang wanprestasi oleh perusahaan Leasing pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 dapat dikualifikasi sebagai tindak pidana adalah pada dasarnya pelaksanaan eksekusi langsung oleh kreditur tanpa melalui PN bisa dilakukan jika debitur mengakui adanya wanprestasi atau cedera janji dalam perjanjiannya dengan kreditur. Namun demikian, ketika tidak diajukan kepada PN dan tidak adanya sukarela dari debitur maka pemidanaan dapat dilekatkan pada perusahaan Leasing atas tindakan pengambilan paksa kendaraan konsumen oleh Debt collectror yang merupakan perpanjangan tangan dari perusahaan Leasing. Pertanggungjawaban pidana tindakan pengambilan secara paksa kendaraan debitur yang wanprestasi oleh perusahaan Leasing pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 adalah perbuatan paksaan dan kekerasan dari orang yang mengaku sebagai pihak yang mendapat kuasa untuk menagih pinjaman utang debitur, bahkan dapat juga melahirkan perbuatan sewenang-wenang yang dilakukan oleh penerima fidusia (kreditur). Hal tersebut jelas merupakan bukti adanya persoalan inkonstitusionalitas dalam norma yang diatur dalam UUJF dan pelekatan hukum pidana pun dapat dilakukan.Kata kunci: pengambilan paksa; debitur; hukum pidana. ABSTRACTForcible taking of motorized vehicles by Leasing companies is detrimental to consumers, especially with the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 which states that this action is prohibited. But on the other hand, the withdrawal was made because the consumer defaulted by not paying the monthly installment of the vehicle. Basically, even though the consumer's actions are acts of default, the forced actions carried out by the Leasing Company tend to be classified as criminal acts. The research method used is the research specification using analytical descriptive. The approach method uses normative juridical. The data collection technique that will be used in this research is document study. The data analysis method is normative qualitative. Based on the analysis that the author carried out, it can be concluded that the act of forcibly taking a debtor's vehicle in default by a Leasing Company after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 can be qualified as a crime is basically the direct execution of the creditor without going through the District Court. done if the debtor admits a default or breach of contract in his agreement with the creditor. However, when it is not submitted to the PN and the debtor is not voluntary, the punishment can be attached to the Leasing Company for the act of forcibly taking consumer vehicles by the debt collector which is an extension of the Leasing Company. Criminal liability for the act of forcibly taking a debtor's vehicle in default by a Leasing Company after the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 is an act of coercion and violence from a person who claims to be the party who has the power to collect the debtor's debt loan, it can even give birth to acts of violence. arbitrarily committed by the fiduciary recipient (creditor). This is clearly evidence of the existence of unconstitutional issues in the norms regulated in UUJF and the attachment of criminal law can also be done.Keywords: Forced Retrieval; Debtor; Criminal Law
Perwitasari Rina - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ANALISIS YURIDIS PENGAMBILAN SECARA PAKSA KENDARAAN DEBITUR YANG WANPRESTASI OLEH PERUSAHAAN Leasing PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PPU-XVII/2019 DALAM PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PIDANA
'Fakultas Hukum UNPAD (FHUNPAD)', 2021Co-Authors: Perwitasari Rina, Suseno Sigid, Tajudin IjudAbstract:ABSTRAKPengambilan paksa kendaraan bermotor oleh perusahaan Leasing merupakan hal yang merugikan konsumen terlebih adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 yang menyatakan adanya pelarangan tindakan tersebut. Namun dilain sisi, penarikan tersebut dilakukan karena konsumen melakukan wanprestasi dengan tidak membayarnya cicilan bulanan kendaraan bermotor. Pada dasarnya meskipun tindakan konsumen merupakan perbuatan wanprestasi, namun tindakan paksa yang dilakukan perusahaan Leasing tersebut cenderung dapat diklasifikasikan sebagai suatu tindak pidana. Metode penelitian yang dilakukan adalah spesifikasi penelitian menggunakan deskriptif analitis. Metode pendekatan menggunakan yuridis normatif. Teknik pengumpulan data yang akan digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah studi dokumen. Metode analisis data adalah normatif kualitatif. Berdasarkan analisis yang penulis lakukan, maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa tindakan pengambilan secara paksa kendaraan debitur yang wanprestasi oleh perusahaan Leasing pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 dapat dikualifikasi sebagai tindak pidana adalah pada dasarnya pelaksanaan eksekusi langsung oleh kreditur tanpa melalui PN bisa dilakukan jika debitur mengakui adanya wanprestasi atau cedera janji dalam perjanjiannya dengan kreditur. Namun demikian, ketika tidak diajukan kepada PN dan tidak adanya sukarela dari debitur maka pemidanaan dapat dilekatkan pada perusahaan Leasing atas tindakan pengambilan paksa kendaraan konsumen oleh Debt collectror yang merupakan perpanjangan tangan dari perusahaan Leasing. Pertanggungjawaban pidana tindakan pengambilan secara paksa kendaraan debitur yang wanprestasi oleh perusahaan Leasing pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 adalah perbuatan paksaan dan kekerasan dari orang yang mengaku sebagai pihak yang mendapat kuasa untuk menagih pinjaman utang debitur, bahkan dapat juga melahirkan perbuatan sewenang-wenang yang dilakukan oleh penerima fidusia (kreditur). Hal tersebut jelas merupakan bukti adanya persoalan inkonstitusionalitas dalam norma yang diatur dalam UUJF dan pelekatan hukum pidana pun dapat dilakukan.Kata kunci: pengambilan paksa; debitur; hukum pidana. ABSTRACTForcible taking of motorized vehicles by Leasing companies is detrimental to consumers, especially with the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 which states that this action is prohibited. But on the other hand, the withdrawal was made because the consumer defaulted by not paying the monthly installment of the vehicle. Basically, even though the consumer's actions are acts of default, the forced actions carried out by the Leasing Company tend to be classified as criminal acts. The research method used is the research specification using analytical descriptive. The approach method uses normative juridical. The data collection technique that will be used in this research is document study. The data analysis method is normative qualitative. Based on the analysis that the author carried out, it can be concluded that the act of forcibly taking a debtor's vehicle in default by a Leasing Company after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 can be qualified as a crime is basically the direct execution of the creditor without going through the District Court. done if the debtor admits a default or breach of contract in his agreement with the creditor. However, when it is not submitted to the PN and the debtor is not voluntary, the punishment can be attached to the Leasing Company for the act of forcibly taking consumer vehicles by the debt collector which is an extension of the Leasing Company. Criminal liability for the act of forcibly taking a debtor's vehicle in default by a Leasing Company after the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 is an act of coercion and violence from a person who claims to be the party who has the power to collect the debtor's debt loan, it can even give birth to acts of violence. arbitrarily committed by the fiduciary recipient (creditor). This is clearly evidence of the existence of unconstitutional issues in the norms regulated in UUJF and the attachment of criminal law can also be done.Keywords: Forced Retrieval; Debtor; Criminal Law
Klimková Kateřina - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Accounting and tax consequences of financing a car by Leasing and consumer credit
Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 2016Co-Authors: Klimková KateřinaAbstract:This work focuses on accounting and tax consequences of financing a car. These forms of financing are Leasing and consumer credit. The issue is recorded at a theoretical level, the work describes characteristics and kinds of forms of financing and points to accounting and tax aspects. Theoretical knowledge is applied to an example of specific payment schedules of financial Leasing and consumer credit from a Leasing Company. The example illustrates accounting and tax impacts and compares both types of financing. As a result, the consumer credit is intended for more favourable form of financing in this particular example, but this statement cannot be applied in all cases, because the course of financing can be affected by several variables aspects
-
Accounting and tax consequences of financing a car by Leasing and consumer credit
Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 2016Co-Authors: Klimková KateřinaAbstract:Práce se zabývá účetními a daňovými konsekvencemi financování osobního automobilu formou Leasingu a spotřebitelského úvěru. Problematiku zachycuje nejprve v teoretické rovině, popisuje charakteristické rysy a druhy forem financování a následně poukazuje na účetní a daňové aspekty. Teoretické poznatky jsou aplikovány na příkladu konkrétních splátkových kalendářů finančního Leasingu a spotřebitelského úvěru od Leasingové společnosti. Příklad zobrazuje účetní a daňové dopady a porovnává oba způsoby financování. Výsledkem konkrétního příkladu je určení spotřebitelského úvěru za výhodnější formu financování, ale toto tvrzení nelze uplatnit ve všech případech, jelikož průběh financování může ovlivnit několik proměnných aspektů.This work focuses on accounting and tax consequences of financing a car. These forms of financing are Leasing and consumer credit. The issue is recorded at a theoretical level, the work describes characteristics and kinds of forms of financing and points to accounting and tax aspects. Theoretical knowledge is applied to an example of specific payment schedules of financial Leasing and consumer credit from a Leasing Company. The example illustrates accounting and tax impacts and compares both types of financing. As a result, the consumer credit is intended for more favourable form of financing in this particular example, but this statement cannot be applied in all cases, because the course of financing can be affected by several variables aspects
Suseno Sigid - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ANALISIS YURIDIS PENGAMBILAN SECARA PAKSA KENDARAAN DEBITUR YANG WANPRESTASI OLEH PERUSAHAAN Leasing PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PPU-XVII/2019 DALAM PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PIDANA
'Fakultas Hukum UNPAD (FHUNPAD)', 2021Co-Authors: Perwitasari Rina, Suseno Sigid, Tajudin IjudAbstract:ABSTRAKPengambilan paksa kendaraan bermotor oleh perusahaan Leasing merupakan hal yang merugikan konsumen terlebih adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 yang menyatakan adanya pelarangan tindakan tersebut. Namun dilain sisi, penarikan tersebut dilakukan karena konsumen melakukan wanprestasi dengan tidak membayarnya cicilan bulanan kendaraan bermotor. Pada dasarnya meskipun tindakan konsumen merupakan perbuatan wanprestasi, namun tindakan paksa yang dilakukan perusahaan Leasing tersebut cenderung dapat diklasifikasikan sebagai suatu tindak pidana. Metode penelitian yang dilakukan adalah spesifikasi penelitian menggunakan deskriptif analitis. Metode pendekatan menggunakan yuridis normatif. Teknik pengumpulan data yang akan digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah studi dokumen. Metode analisis data adalah normatif kualitatif. Berdasarkan analisis yang penulis lakukan, maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa tindakan pengambilan secara paksa kendaraan debitur yang wanprestasi oleh perusahaan Leasing pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 dapat dikualifikasi sebagai tindak pidana adalah pada dasarnya pelaksanaan eksekusi langsung oleh kreditur tanpa melalui PN bisa dilakukan jika debitur mengakui adanya wanprestasi atau cedera janji dalam perjanjiannya dengan kreditur. Namun demikian, ketika tidak diajukan kepada PN dan tidak adanya sukarela dari debitur maka pemidanaan dapat dilekatkan pada perusahaan Leasing atas tindakan pengambilan paksa kendaraan konsumen oleh Debt collectror yang merupakan perpanjangan tangan dari perusahaan Leasing. Pertanggungjawaban pidana tindakan pengambilan secara paksa kendaraan debitur yang wanprestasi oleh perusahaan Leasing pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PPU-XVII/2019 adalah perbuatan paksaan dan kekerasan dari orang yang mengaku sebagai pihak yang mendapat kuasa untuk menagih pinjaman utang debitur, bahkan dapat juga melahirkan perbuatan sewenang-wenang yang dilakukan oleh penerima fidusia (kreditur). Hal tersebut jelas merupakan bukti adanya persoalan inkonstitusionalitas dalam norma yang diatur dalam UUJF dan pelekatan hukum pidana pun dapat dilakukan.Kata kunci: pengambilan paksa; debitur; hukum pidana. ABSTRACTForcible taking of motorized vehicles by Leasing companies is detrimental to consumers, especially with the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 which states that this action is prohibited. But on the other hand, the withdrawal was made because the consumer defaulted by not paying the monthly installment of the vehicle. Basically, even though the consumer's actions are acts of default, the forced actions carried out by the Leasing Company tend to be classified as criminal acts. The research method used is the research specification using analytical descriptive. The approach method uses normative juridical. The data collection technique that will be used in this research is document study. The data analysis method is normative qualitative. Based on the analysis that the author carried out, it can be concluded that the act of forcibly taking a debtor's vehicle in default by a Leasing Company after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 can be qualified as a crime is basically the direct execution of the creditor without going through the District Court. done if the debtor admits a default or breach of contract in his agreement with the creditor. However, when it is not submitted to the PN and the debtor is not voluntary, the punishment can be attached to the Leasing Company for the act of forcibly taking consumer vehicles by the debt collector which is an extension of the Leasing Company. Criminal liability for the act of forcibly taking a debtor's vehicle in default by a Leasing Company after the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 18/PPU-XVII/2019 is an act of coercion and violence from a person who claims to be the party who has the power to collect the debtor's debt loan, it can even give birth to acts of violence. arbitrarily committed by the fiduciary recipient (creditor). This is clearly evidence of the existence of unconstitutional issues in the norms regulated in UUJF and the attachment of criminal law can also be done.Keywords: Forced Retrieval; Debtor; Criminal Law