SITA DALAM PERKARA PIDANA ATAS SITA UMUM BOEDEL PAILIT (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 1533 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017 jo Putusan Nomor 16/Pdt.Sus-GGL/2017/PN.Niaga Jkt.Pst)

Abstract

Bankruptcy confiscation is governed by Article 31 paragraph (2) of Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Settlement Obligation Law (Bankruptcy–Debt Postponement Law) while the criminal seizure is governed by Article 39 paragraph (2) of Indonesia Criminal Code (ICC). Under bankruptcy law regime, confiscation is executed for the sake of creditor interest while in criminal law regime the seizure is executed for the sake of court evidentiary interest. This research explains the following issues, first, the mean and implementation of Article 39 paragraph (2) of ICC, and, second, the implementation of criminal seizure toward bankruptcy confiscation as means in Court Award No. 1533 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017 jo Court Award No. 16/Pdt.Sus-GGL/2017/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst through juridical-normative method and qualitative analysis to achieve a conclusion. According to the research, the mean and implementation of Article 39 paragraph (2) ICC are that a temporary criminal seizure, for the sake of court evidentiary purpose, may be imposed toward a bankruptcy confiscation. So that, with the exhaustive of evidentiary purpose in criminal court, such criminal seizure may be returned to become bankruptcy confiscation under receivership for the interest of the creditor. In a conclusion, the execution of criminal seizure toward bankruptcy confiscation imposed toward 3 (three) plot of lands for the evidentiary purpose of corruption case as means in the Court Award No. 1533 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2017 jo Court Award No. 16/Pdt.Sus-GGL/2017/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst shall fulfill the requirement of Article 39 paragraph (1) of ICC.