{"title":"财务基本信心下借方资产执行的CORATOR会议","authors":"Ranitya Ganindha, Nadhira Putri Indira","doi":"10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2020.01302.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Law Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspention of Payment does not regulate authority of the curator in executing the bankruptcy boedel that is outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia. Therefore it is important to analyse the authority of curator in executing bankruptcy boedel abroad. This normative legal research uses s tatutes and comparative approach . The results shows that first, Indonesia adheres the principle of universality against bankruptcy property outside of the jurisdiction of the country so the curator has authority to execute the bankruptcy boedel abroad. However, curators have difficulty in executing bankruptcy boedel in other jurisdictios. Second, Law Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment does not regulate the authority of curator in executing the bankrupt boedel outside of Indonesian jurisdiction, especially when it is collided with the jurisdiction of other countries. Therefore the Bankcruptcy law needs to be revised. Third, Singapore has similarity with Indonesia related to the principle of universality in executing bankruptcy boedel beyond its jurisdiction. However, when it comes to jurisdiction of other countries, Singapore has bilateral agreements with Malaysia and has ratified UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment. Abstrak Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU tidak mengatur kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia, sehingga penting untuk meneliti bagaimanakah kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekui boedel pailit yang berada diluar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia. Penelitian hukum normatif ini menggunakan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan, dan pendekatan perbandingan. Hasilnya adalah pertama, Indonesia menganut prinsip universalitas terhadap harta pailit yang berada di luar batas negara sehingga aset pailit dapat berada di dalam dan luar yurisdiksi negara. Namun, kurator mengalami kesulitan dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit karena terbentur yurisdiksi negara lain. Kedua, Undang No.37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU tidak mengatur kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia khususnya yang bertentangan yurisdiksi negara lain sehingga perlunya merevisi Undang-Undang Kepailitan terkait Kepailitan Lintas Batas Negara, terutama dalam hal mendukung kemudahan berbisnis. Ketiga, Singapura dengan Indonesia memiliki kesamaan prinsip universalitas dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar negaranya. Namun, apabila terbentur dengan yurisdiksi negara lain, Singapura melakukan perjanjian bilateral dengan Malaysia dan meratifikasi UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment .","PeriodicalId":31258,"journal":{"name":"Arena Hukum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"KEWENANGAN KURATOR DALAM EKSEKUSI ASET DEBITOR PADA KEPAILITAN LINTAS BATAS NEGARA\",\"authors\":\"Ranitya Ganindha, Nadhira Putri Indira\",\"doi\":\"10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2020.01302.8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Law Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspention of Payment does not regulate authority of the curator in executing the bankruptcy boedel that is outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia. Therefore it is important to analyse the authority of curator in executing bankruptcy boedel abroad. This normative legal research uses s tatutes and comparative approach . The results shows that first, Indonesia adheres the principle of universality against bankruptcy property outside of the jurisdiction of the country so the curator has authority to execute the bankruptcy boedel abroad. However, curators have difficulty in executing bankruptcy boedel in other jurisdictios. Second, Law Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment does not regulate the authority of curator in executing the bankrupt boedel outside of Indonesian jurisdiction, especially when it is collided with the jurisdiction of other countries. Therefore the Bankcruptcy law needs to be revised. Third, Singapore has similarity with Indonesia related to the principle of universality in executing bankruptcy boedel beyond its jurisdiction. However, when it comes to jurisdiction of other countries, Singapore has bilateral agreements with Malaysia and has ratified UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment. Abstrak Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU tidak mengatur kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia, sehingga penting untuk meneliti bagaimanakah kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekui boedel pailit yang berada diluar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia. Penelitian hukum normatif ini menggunakan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan, dan pendekatan perbandingan. Hasilnya adalah pertama, Indonesia menganut prinsip universalitas terhadap harta pailit yang berada di luar batas negara sehingga aset pailit dapat berada di dalam dan luar yurisdiksi negara. Namun, kurator mengalami kesulitan dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit karena terbentur yurisdiksi negara lain. Kedua, Undang No.37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU tidak mengatur kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia khususnya yang bertentangan yurisdiksi negara lain sehingga perlunya merevisi Undang-Undang Kepailitan terkait Kepailitan Lintas Batas Negara, terutama dalam hal mendukung kemudahan berbisnis. Ketiga, Singapura dengan Indonesia memiliki kesamaan prinsip universalitas dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar negaranya. Namun, apabila terbentur dengan yurisdiksi negara lain, Singapura melakukan perjanjian bilateral dengan Malaysia dan meratifikasi UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment .\",\"PeriodicalId\":31258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arena Hukum\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arena Hukum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2020.01302.8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arena Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2020.01302.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
KEWENANGAN KURATOR DALAM EKSEKUSI ASET DEBITOR PADA KEPAILITAN LINTAS BATAS NEGARA
Abstract Law Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspention of Payment does not regulate authority of the curator in executing the bankruptcy boedel that is outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia. Therefore it is important to analyse the authority of curator in executing bankruptcy boedel abroad. This normative legal research uses s tatutes and comparative approach . The results shows that first, Indonesia adheres the principle of universality against bankruptcy property outside of the jurisdiction of the country so the curator has authority to execute the bankruptcy boedel abroad. However, curators have difficulty in executing bankruptcy boedel in other jurisdictios. Second, Law Number 37 Year 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment does not regulate the authority of curator in executing the bankrupt boedel outside of Indonesian jurisdiction, especially when it is collided with the jurisdiction of other countries. Therefore the Bankcruptcy law needs to be revised. Third, Singapore has similarity with Indonesia related to the principle of universality in executing bankruptcy boedel beyond its jurisdiction. However, when it comes to jurisdiction of other countries, Singapore has bilateral agreements with Malaysia and has ratified UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment. Abstrak Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU tidak mengatur kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia, sehingga penting untuk meneliti bagaimanakah kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekui boedel pailit yang berada diluar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia. Penelitian hukum normatif ini menggunakan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan, dan pendekatan perbandingan. Hasilnya adalah pertama, Indonesia menganut prinsip universalitas terhadap harta pailit yang berada di luar batas negara sehingga aset pailit dapat berada di dalam dan luar yurisdiksi negara. Namun, kurator mengalami kesulitan dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit karena terbentur yurisdiksi negara lain. Kedua, Undang No.37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU tidak mengatur kewenangan kurator dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar batas yurisdiksi Indonesia khususnya yang bertentangan yurisdiksi negara lain sehingga perlunya merevisi Undang-Undang Kepailitan terkait Kepailitan Lintas Batas Negara, terutama dalam hal mendukung kemudahan berbisnis. Ketiga, Singapura dengan Indonesia memiliki kesamaan prinsip universalitas dalam mengeksekusi boedel pailit di luar negaranya. Namun, apabila terbentur dengan yurisdiksi negara lain, Singapura melakukan perjanjian bilateral dengan Malaysia dan meratifikasi UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment .