eprintid: 71893
rev_number: 10
eprint_status: archive
userid: 12460
dir: disk0/00/07/18/93
datestamp: 2025-07-16 07:29:52
lastmod: 2025-07-16 07:29:52
status_changed: 2025-07-16 07:29:52
type: thesis
metadata_visibility: show
contact_email: muh.khabib@uin-suka.ac.id
creators_name: Reza Dabitha Milavera, NIM.: 21103040198
title: EKSEKUSI OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA  TERHADAP BENDA BERGERAK PASCA  PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019  (STUDI KASUS DI PT BPR CHANDRA MUKTIARTHA GEDONGKUNING YOGYAKARTA)
ispublished: pub
subjects: 320
divisions: il_hum
full_text_status: restricted
keywords: Kredit Macet, Fidusia, Wanprestasi
note: Dr. Wardatul Fitri, M.H.
abstract: Credit is a banking service that is favored by many people. However, providing credit is a risky thing. The bank of course cannot avoid this risk, therefore to minimize the risks that will occur, collateral is needed. One of them is a fiduciary guarantee. With collateral, of course, it can provide a sense of security but that does not necessarily guarantee that all processes will run smoothly. In practice, there are still many debtors who make defaults. If this happens, the creditor has the right to execute the pledged object. This study aims to determine the implementation of execution and legal consequences after the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 at BPR Chandra Muktiartha.
This type of research is empirical juridical. Empirica juridical is a field research to obtain information through interviews. Data analysis is carried out with qualitative methods to understand the implementation of execution in practice. The theories used in this research are legal protection theory, agreement theory, and guarantee theory.
The results showed that, First the execution of defaults on fiduciary security objects at BPR Chandra Muktiartha prioritizes non-litigation settlement through negotiations with debtors. If the debtor is not cooperative, BPR Chandra Muktiartha will confiscate the collateral. However, after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019, the creditor cannot confiscate collateral if the debtor does not want to sign a unit withdrawal agreement letter as long as there is no prior agreement and must go through a court process. Second, the legal consequences after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 on the execution of defaults at BPR Chandra Muktiartha have become more complex and cost more money.
date: 2025-06-03
date_type: published
pages: 123
institution: UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
department: FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUM
thesis_type: skripsi
thesis_name: other
citation:   Reza Dabitha Milavera, NIM.: 21103040198  (2025) EKSEKUSI OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA TERHADAP BENDA BERGERAK PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019 (STUDI KASUS DI PT BPR CHANDRA MUKTIARTHA GEDONGKUNING YOGYAKARTA).  Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.   
document_url: https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/71893/1/21103040198_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf
document_url: https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/71893/2/21103040198_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf