The Crime of Entering False Information in the Fiduciary Agreement Deed: The Crime of Entering False Information in the Fiduciary Agreement Deed

Vidianti Putri; S Endang Prasetyawati

doi:10.47268/pamali.v6i2.3767

Authors

Vidianti Putri ✉ Universitas Bandar Lampung , Indonesia
S Endang Prasetyawati Universitas Bandar Lampung , Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47268/pamali.v6i2.3767

Keywords:

Fiduciary Guarantees, Misleading Information, Criminal Liability

Abstract

Introduction: The provision of information that is not in accordance with the facts in the formation of a fiduciary guarantee can cause criminal problems when the information becomes the basis for the birth of a financing relationship and causes losses for creditors. Legal problems arise in determining the boundary between contractual failure and criminal acts and proving the intentionality of the perpetrator based on Article 35 of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees.

Purposes of the Research: This study aims to analyze the factors behind the provision of incorrect information and examine the construction of the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges in Decision Number: 54/Pid.Sus/2025/PN.Tjk, especially regarding the fulfillment of the elements of criminal acts and criminal responsibility of the defendant.

Methods of the Research: The research uses a normative-empirical juridical method. The normative approach is carried out through the analysis of laws and regulations, court decisions, doctrine, and legal theory, while the empirical approach is carried out through interviews with law enforcement officials related to the case. The data is analyzed qualitatively by linking empirical facts with the construction of applicable criminal norms.

Results Main Findings of the Research: The research shows that the criminal act in the case is influenced by the interaction of internal factors in the form of intentionality, active role, profit orientation, and low legal compliance with external factors in the form of opportunities in financing mechanisms and the vulnerability of trust-based fiduciary relationships. The judge's consideration rests on the suitability of evidence, the fulfillment of the elements of Article 35, the defendant's mistakes, and the philosophical and sociological considerations of the offense. Conclusion: Criminal liability in this case is mainly determined by the relationship between incorrect information, the birth of financing approvals, the intentionality of the defendant, and the creditor's losses. Therefore, fiduciary law enforcement requires not only formal proof of false information, but also arguments regarding the causal relationship with the birth of the agreement and the criminal fault of the perpetrator.

References

Adami Chazawi. Pelajaran Hukum Pidana I, Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada, 2014.

Andi Hamzah. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2014.

Bambang Hartono, Zainudin Hasan, dan Ismi Rahmawati. “Akibat Hukum Putusan Pra Peradilan Terhadap Penetapan Tersangka Dugaan Melakukan Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Sekretariat DPRD Tulang Bawang (Studi Putusan Nomor: 6/Pid.Pra/2020/PN.Tjk)”, Jurnal Pro Justitia (JPJ) 3, no. 2 (2022): 29-41.

Bambang Hartono. “Penegakan Hukum Pidana yang Progresif dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana”, Jurnal Keadilan Progresif 6, no. 1 (2015).

Benny Karya Limantara. “Efektivitas Pemidanaan dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia”, Jurnal Hukum Res Justitia 2, no. 1 (2019).

E.Y. Kanter, and S. R. Sianturi. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana di Indonesia dan Penerapannya, Jakarta: Storia Grafika, 2012.

Firganefi, dan Deni Achmad, Buku Ajar Hukum Kriminologi, Bandar Lampung: PKK-PUU Universitas Lampung, 2013.

Hayat. "Keadilan sebagai Prinsip Negara Hukum: Tinjauan Teoritis dalam Konsep Demokrasi," Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law): 2, no. 2 (2015): 388-408. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v2n2.a10.

Irma Ramadani, Hambali Thalib, and Dian Eka Pusvita Azis. “Analisis Hukum Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Pemalsuan Identitas oleh Pemberi Fidusia (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Makassar Nomor 1097/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.MKS)”, Legal Dialogica 1, no. 1 (2025): 1-11.

Ismail Koto dan Faisal. 2021. “Penerapan Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia pada Benda Bergerak terhadap Debitur Wanprestasi”, Journal of Education, Humaniora and Social Sciences 4, no. 2 (2021): 774-781.

Jimly Asshiddiqie. Implikasi Perubahan UUD 1945 terhadap Pembangunan Hukum Nasional, Jakarta: Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, 2005.

Kezia Hinonaung. “Ketentuan Pidana di Bidang Administrasi Kependudukan Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2013 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2006 tentang Administrasi Kependudukan”, Lex Privatum 8, no. 4 (2020): 229-238.

Leden Marpaung. Asas-Teori-Praktik Hukum Pidana, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2008.

Lintje Anna Marpaung. Politik Pemerintahan Daerah-Kajian Hukum Otonomi Daerah Berbasis Kearifan Lokal, Bandar Lampung: Pusaka Media, 2021.

Lilik Mulyadi. Hukum Acara Pidana Normatif, Teoritis, Praktik dan Permasalahannya, Bandung: Alumni, 2007.

Moeljatno. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana, Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2008.

Muchammad Yusuf dan A. Manfaluthi. “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Pelaku Pemalsuan Dokumen pada Perjanjian Jaminan Fidusia (Studi Putusan Nomor 520/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Smn)”, Jurnal Fundamental Justice 5, no. 1 (2024): 50–62. https://doi.org/10.30812/fundamental.v5i1.2998.

Muladi. “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi”, Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 4, no. 3 (2015).

Nasir, M., Khoiriyah, E., Pamungkas, B. P., Hardianti, I., & Zildjianda, R. “Kedudukan Hukum dalam Mewujudkan Keadilan dan Kesejahteraan di Indonesia”, Al-Manhaj: Jurnal Hukum dan Pranata Sosial Islam 5, no. 1 (2023): 241–254.

P. A. F. Lamintang. Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana Indonesia, Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2014.

Rusli Muhammad. Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2007.

Roeslan Saleh. Pikiran-Pikiran tentang Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Cetakan Keempat, Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia, 2003.

S. Endang Prasetyawati. “Kedudukan Produk Hukum dari Fungsi Pengaturan Mahkamah Agung dalam Sistem Perundang-Undangan Nasional”, Pranata Hukum 14, no. 1 (2019): 15-24. https://doi.org/10.36448/pranatahukum.v14i1.158.

Soedarto. Hukum Pidana dan Pidana, Bandung: Alumni, 2007.

Sriono. “Tanggung Jawab Pemberi Fidusia terhadap Benda Jaminan Fidusia dalam Perjanjian Kredit”, Advokasi 7, no. 2 (2019): 149-159. https://doi.org/10.36987/jiad.v7i2.1563.

Wirjono Prodjodikoro. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana di Indonesia, Jakarta: Refika Aditama, 2014.