Laporkan Masalah

ANALISIS KESALAHAN DAN KELALAIAN YANG DILAKUKAN KURATOR DALAM PENGURUSAN DAN PEMBERESAN HARTA PAILIT DALAM PROSES KEPAILITAN (Studi Kasus: Putusan Peninjauan Kembali MA RI No.: 91PK/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2018)

TOGAR JULIO PARHUSIP, Prof. Dr. Sulistiowati, S.H., M.Hum.

2021 | Tesis | MAGISTER ILMU HUKUM (KAMPUS JAKARTA)

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis keadilan bagi kreditor dalam proses pengurusan dan pemberesan harta pailit atas kesalahan dan kelalaian yang dilakukan kurator menurut Undang-undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU terhadap kasus Putusan Peninjauan Kembali MA RI No. 91PK/PDT.SUS.PAILIT/2018. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah Penelitian ini bersifat penelitian yuridis normatif, dengan cara melakukan pengkajian perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan diterapkan terhadap suatu permasalahan hukum tertentu. memperoleh data primer dan data sekunder. Penelitian lapangan dilakukan dengan mewawancarai narasumber terhadap penasehat hukum yang memiliki keahlian dibidang kepailitan dalam hal ini, yaitu kurator yang memahami dalam perkara kepailitan sehingga data dalam penelitian kepustakaan maupun lapangan dianalisis secacara kualitatif hasil analisis disajikan secara diskriptif. Berdasarkan dari hasil penelitian, penulis menyimpulkan bahwa UU Kepailitan dan PKPU telah memberikan perlindungan hukum secara preventif bagi kreditor separatis dan kreditor konkuren dalam pemberesan harta pailit, namun tetap saja tidak memberikan hasil karena kurator tidak memenuhi undangan klarifikasi yang diberikan Hakim Pengawas berdasarkan keberatan dari Kreditor Separatis dan Kreditor Konkuren. Walaupun secara komprehensif telah memberikan keadilan, namun tetap harus bersengketa untuk dapat menentukan kebenaran. Selanjutnya, UU Kepailitan dan PKPU telah memberikan perlindungan hukum secara represif bagi kreditor separatis dan kreditor konkuren dalam pengurusan dan pemberesan harta pailit. Kesalahan kurator adalah tidak membagikan boedel pailit kepada kreditor separatis dan kreditor konkuren dengan alasan memotong pajak penghasilan Pph 26 yang sama sekali tidak didaftarkan sebagaimana bertentangan dengan Pasal 113 jo. Pasal 115 jo. Pasal 133 ayat (2) UU Kepailitan dan PKPU, padahal secara asas lex specialis derogate lex generalis seharusnya tidak dipotong dan harus membagikan harta boedel pailit kepada kreditor separatis dan kreditor konkuren.

This study aims to analyze the fairness for creditors in the process of management and settlement of bankrupt assets for errors and negligence made by curators according to Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations against the case of Judicial Review Award of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 91PK/PDT.SUS.PAILIT/2018. The research method used is this research is a normative juridical research, by conducting a study of the applicable laws and applied to a particular legal issue. Primary data and secondary data have been obtained. Field research was conducted by interviewing speakers to legal advisors who have expertise in the field of bankruptcy in this case, curators who understand bankruptcy cases. Thus, the data in the literature and field research were analyzed qualitative smallpox and the analysis results were presented in a descriptive manner. Based on the results of the study, the writer concluded that the Law of Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations have provided preventive legal protection for separatist creditors and concurrent creditors in the settlement of bankrupt assets, but still did not provide results because the curator did not meet the clarification invitation provided by the Supervisory Judge based on objections from Separatist Creditors and Concurrent Creditors. Although comprehensively it has provided justice, but still has to dispute in order to be able to determine the truth. Furthermore, the Law of Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations have provided repressive legal protection for separatist creditors and concurrent creditors in the management and settlement of bankrupt assets. The curator's mistake was not to hand out bankrupt boedel to separatist creditors and concurrent creditors on the grounds of withholding Income Tax Income Tax 26, which is not registered at all as contrary to Article 113 in conjunction with Article 115 in conjunction with Article 133 sub-article (2) of the Law of Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, whereas in principle of lex specialis derogate lex generalis, it should not be withheld and should distribute bankrupt boedel properties to separatist creditors and concurrent creditors.

Kata Kunci : Kepailitan, Harta Pailit, Kurator, Kreditor/Bankruptcy, Bankrupt Assets, Curator, Creditor

  1. S2-2021-433230-Bibliography.pdf  
  2. S2-2021-433230-Title.pdf