The Responsibility of the Fiduciary Provider for the Transfer of the Object of the Fiduciary Guarantee to Another Party without the Consent of the Fiduciary Recipient in the Perspective of Criminal Law (Case Study of the Medan District Court Decision No. 1986/Pid.Sus/2017/Pn.Mdn)

113 HalamanDebitur berkewajiban memelihara dengan baik terhadap objek jaminan dan tidak dibenarkan mengalihkan atau menggadaikan ataupun menyewakan objek jaminan kepada pihak lain. Berdasarkan hal tersebut rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini: 1) Faktor apa saja yang mendorong pemberi fidusia melakukan pengalihan objek fidusia kepada pihak lain tanpa persetujuan dari penerima fidusia, 2) Bagaimana bentuk perlindungan hukum terhadap penerima fidusia atas pengalihan objek jaminan fidusia yang dilakukan oleh pemberi fidusia tanpa persetujuan dari penerima fidusia, 3) Bagaimana tanggungjawab pemberi fidusia atas pengalihan objek fidusia ke pihak lain tanpa adanya persetujuan dari penerima fidusia dalam perspektif hukum pidana sesuai putusan No. 1986/Pid.Sus/2017/PN.Mdn. Adapun metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode deskriptif, sedangkan teknik analisis data menggunakan deskriptif kualitatif. Dari hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa terdapat banyak faktor yang dapat mendorong pemberi fidusia melakukan pengalihan objek fidusia tanpa persetujuan penerima fidusia, yaitu: tidak sanggup membayar angsuran, tidak memahami aturan fidusia yang tidak membolehkan pengalihan objek jaminan, debitur takut kehilangan sebagian uang yang telah dibayar jika pengalihan atas persetujuan kreditur, pengurusan administrasi pengalihan objek fidusia tergolong rumit dan membutuhkan waktu lama, dalam pengalihan objek fidusia kreditur sering membuat persyaratan yang sulit dipenuhi, debitur memiliki niat jahat untuk menggelapkan objek fidusia, adanya perselisihan dengan kreditur, pihak ketiga penerima objek fidusia mudah ditemukan karena minat masyarakat untuk menerima pengalihan cukup tinggi, tingginya permintaan penggelapan dari pasar gelap, perlindungan hukum terhadap debitur dalam fidusia tergolong lemah, dan dipengaruhi orang lain (teman). Bentuk perlindungan hukum oleh negara diwujudkan melalui Peraturan Perundang-Undangan terkait dalam hal ini adalah UU Fidusia. Dalam pemberian jaminan Fidusia harus melalui pendaftaran sesuai bunyi Pasal 3 UU Fidusia dengan tujuan kepastian peringkat kreditur. Maka sesuai dengan mekanisme dari pemberian jaminan fidusia adalah mengikuti perjanjian pokok (utama) misalkan tentang hutang piutang ada pemberian jaminan fidusia, maka barang yang dijadikan jaminan harus didaftarkan, sehingga jika terjadi pengalihan barang atau perubahan jenis barang harus melalui kesepakatan dua belah pihak kreditur dan debitur. Tanggungjawab terdakwa JUPRIANTO,SH sebagai pemberi fidusia (debitur) atas pengalihan objek fidusia adalah dengan pidana penjara 1 tahun 6 bulan, dan denda Rp. 10.000.000. Majelis hakim menetapkan pertanggungjawaban pidana berupa denda yang terlalu ringan dan sangat tidak sebanding dengan nilai kerugian yang dialami oleh kreditur (penerima fidusia). Majelis hakim seharusnya dapat menjatuhkan pidana denda maksimum sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 23 UUJF, yaitu sebesar Rp. 50.000.000. Hal ini karena jaksa penuntut tidak dapat menghadirkan bukti objek fidusia yang dialihkan, dan terdakwa juga tidak mengetahui keberadaan objek tersebut. The debtor is obliged to properly maintain the object of collateral and is not permitted to transfer or mortgage or lease the collateral object to another party. Based on this, the formulation of the problem in this study: 1) What factors encourage fiduciary givers to transfer fiduciary objects to other parties without the consent of fiduciary recipients, 2) What is the form of legal protection for fiduciary recipients over the transfer of fiduciary collateral objects carried out by fiduciary givers without the consent of the fiduciary recipient, 3) What is the responsibility of the fiduciary giver for the transfer of fiduciary objects to another party without the consent of the fiduciary recipient in the perspective of criminal law in accordance with decision No. 1986 / Pid.Sus / 2017 / PN.Mdn. The research method used is descriptive method, while the data analysis technique uses qualitative descriptive. From the results of this study indicate that there are many factors that can encourage fiduciary providers to transfer fiduciary objects without the consent of fiduciary recipients, namely: unable to pay installments, do not understand fiduciary rules that do not allow the transfer of collateral, debtors are afraid of losing some of the money that has been paid if transfer of creditors' approval, administration arrangements for transferring fiduciary objects are complex and take a long time, in transferring fiduciary objects creditors often make conditions difficult to fulfill, debtors have malicious intentions to embezzle fiduciary objects, disputes with creditors, third parties receiving fiduciary objects are easy to find because the interest of the community to receive diversion is quite high, high demand for embezzlement from the black market, legal protection for debtors in fiduciary is relatively weak, and influenced by others (friends). The form of legal protection by the state is realized through legislation related to this matter is the Fiduciary Law. In granting Fiduciary guarantees, they must go through registration in accordance with Article 3 of the Fiduciary Law with the aim of ensuring creditor ratings. So according to the mechanism of providing fiduciary collateral is to follow the principal agreement (for example) regarding debts there is a fiduciary guarantee, goods used as collateral must be registered, so that if there is a transfer of goods or changes in the type of goods must go through the agreement of the two creditors and debtors . The responsibility of the defendant JUPRIANTO, SH as the fiduciary giver (debtor) for the transfer of fiduciary objects is a 1 year 6 month imprisonment, and a fine of Rp. 10,000,000. The judges set criminal liability in the form of fines that are too light and not very comparable to the value of the losses suffered by creditors (fiduciary recipients). The panel of judges should be able to impose a maximum fine as stipulated in article 23 of the UUJF, which is Rp. 50,000,000. This is because the prosecutor was unable to present evidence of the fiduciary object being transferred, and the defendant also did not know the whereabouts of the object