Hakekat peranan hukum pemegang saham dalam dunia perbankan di Indonesia :: Studi kasus penyelesaian kredit macet (bank bermasalah)

AGAMA, Sukri, Prof. Dr. Nindyo Pramono, S.H., M.S

2009 | Tesis | S2 Magister Hukum

Pertanggungjawaban pemegang saham perseroan terbatas pada mulanya merupakan masalah yang kontroversial, karena tanggung jawab pemegang saham dalam perseroan terbatas tidak boleh lebih dari nilai saham yang dimilikinya, sebagaimana tertuang dalam Pasal 3 ayat (1) Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT). Akan tetapi dalam keadaan tertentu tabir pemisah antara perseroan terbatas dan para pemegang saham dapat disingkap oleh hakim (piercing the corporate veil) sesuai dengan Pasal 3 ayat (2) jo. Pasal 138 UU PT. Pemegang saham dapat bertanggung jawab secara tidak terbatas atau terbatas adalah melalui suatu proses pemeriksaan di pengadilan. Hakim akan menentukan apakah pemegang saham perseroan terbatas melanggar norma Pasal 3 ayat (2) UU PT. Proses pengadilan inilah yang akan membuktikan apakah ada piercing the corporate veil pada perseroan terbatas bank apabila terjadi likuidasi perseroan terbatas bank akibat kredit macet dan aset yang ada tidak mencukupi untuk membayar kepada kreditur dan atau pihak ketiga. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode yuridis normatif. Terdapat dua pendekatan yang dapat digunakan dalam penyelesaian pertanggungjawaban pemegang saham perseroan terbatas bank, yaitu pertama, menggunakan hukum perusahaan melalui mekanisme piercing the corporate veil, dan kedua, melalui hukum perbankan. Apabila terbukti pemegang saham secara langsung atau tidak langsung menyebabkan perseroan terbatas bank mengalami kebangkrutan maka pemegang saham dapat bertanggung jawab secara pribadi. Namun apabila tidak terbukti tetapi perseroan terbatas bank tetap bermasalah, pemegang saham pengendali perseroan terbatas bank secara pribadi tetap dapat dituntut untuk bertanggung jawab atas dasar pernyataan kesanggupan pemegang saham pengendali sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Pasal 9 huruf a angka 4) Undang-undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2004 tentang Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan dan Peraturan Bank Indonesia Pasal 25 ayat (2) huruf c PBI Nomor 5/25/PBI/2003. Dengan demikian, pemegang saham perseroan terbatas bank dapat dituntut pertanggungjawaban secara pribadi walaupun tidak ada piercing the corporate veil.

Responsibility of the limited company's shareholders at first was the controversial problem, because of shareholders's responsibility in the limited company might not more than the value of the share that was had by him, as being poured in the Article 3 articles (1) regulations 40 in 2007 about the Limited Company (UU PT). But in the certain situation the arbiter's curtain between the limited company and the shareholders could be opened by the judge (piercing the corporate veil) in accordance with the Article 3 articles (2) Jo. The article 138 UU PT. Shareholders could be responsible in a manner was unlimited or limited was through a process of the inspection in the court. The judge will determine whether the limited company's shareholders violated the standard of the Article 3 articles (2) this PT. Justice process regulation that will prove whether being piercing the corporate veil to the bank's Limited Company if the liquidation of the bank's Limited Company happening as a result of credit stalled and available assets did not suffice to pay to kreditur and or the third party. The method that was used in this research was the juridical method normative. Gotten by two approaches that could be used in the resolution the bank's Limited Company of shareholders's responsibility, that is first, use the company's law through the mechanism piercing the corporate veil, and the two, through the banking law. If being proven shareholders directly or directly did not cause the bank's Limited Company to experience the bankruptcy then shareholders could be responsible personally. However if being unproven but the bank's Limited Company stayed problematic, the manager's shareholders of the bank's Limited Company personally continued to be able to be prosecuted to be responsible on the basis of the ability statement of the manager's shareholders as being stated in the Article 9 letter a figure 4) Regulations 24 in 2004 about the Agency and the Bank's Indonesian Regulation of the savings Guarantor the Article 25 articles (2) letter c PBI number 5/25/PBI/2003. Therefore, shareholders the bank's Limited Company could be prosecuted by responsibility personally although being not piercing the corporate veil.

Kata Kunci : Tanggung jawab pemegang saham,Mekanisme piercing the corporate veil,Dapat dituntut secara pribadi, shareholders's Responsibility, the Mechanism piercing the corporate veil, could be demanded personally