Batas Pertanggungjawaban Pribadi Direksi Perusahaan Pembiayaan atas Kerugian Perseroan yang Timbul dari Tindakan Penagih Pihak Ketiga (Debt Collector) dalam Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia: Analisis Fiduciary Duty dan Business Judgment Rule
Abstract
The execution of fiduciary collateral by finance companies frequently involves third-party debt collection agencies (debt collectors), whose actions have often resulted in legal disputes due to violations of applicable laws and regulations. This situation raises legal issues concerning the liability of finance companies and the personal liability of directors for corporate losses arising from the unlawful conduct of third-party debt collectors. This study aims to analyze the liability of finance companies for the actions of debt collectors in the execution of fiduciary collateral and to formulate the limits of directors' personal liability based on the principles of fiduciary duty and the business judgment rule. This research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Legal materials were collected through library research, including legislation, court decisions, legal doctrines, books, and scholarly journal articles, and were analyzed qualitatively using legal interpretation methods. The findings indicate that the appointment of debt collectors does not transfer the legal responsibility of finance companies for the actions of third parties. Directors' personal liability does not arise automatically but only where there is a proven breach of fiduciary duty, a causal relationship between the directors' negligence and the company's losses, and the absence of the legal protection afforded by the business judgment rule. This study concludes that the integration of fiduciary duty and the business judgment rule provides an appropriate legal framework for determining the limits of directors' personal liability while strengthening the implementation of good corporate governance within finance companies.
References
Fuady, M. (2017). Doktrin-doktrin modern dalam corporate law dan eksistensinya dalam hukum Indonesia. PT Citra Aditya Bakti.
Harahap, M. Y. (2016). Hukum perseroan terbatas. Sinar Grafika.
Igrisa, A., & Subekti, R. (2026). Perlindungan hukum terhadap debitur dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi jaminan fidusia pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 15(1), 45–62.
Khairandy, R. (2014). Perseroan terbatas: Doktrin, peraturan perundang-undangan, dan yurisprudensi. FH UII Press.
Ling, A., & Widodo, H. (2024). Corporate governance and directors' liability in Indonesian finance companies. Jurnal RechtsVinding, 13(2), 173–192.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2019). Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia.
Miru, A., & Yodo, S. (2017). Hukum perlindungan konsumen. Rajawali Pers.
Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Republik Indonesia. (2023). Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 22 Tahun 2023 tentang Pelindungan Konsumen dan Masyarakat di Sektor Jasa Keuangan.
Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Republik Indonesia. (2024). Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 48 Tahun 2024 tentang Tata Kelola yang Baik bagi Perusahaan Pembiayaan, Perusahaan Modal Ventura, Lembaga Keuangan Mikro, dan Lembaga Jasa Keuangan Lainnya.
Republik Indonesia. (1999). Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia.
Republik Indonesia. (2007). Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas.
Salim, H. S. (2017). Perkembangan hukum jaminan di Indonesia. Rajawali Pers.
Satrio, J. (2020). Hukum jaminan: Hak jaminan kebendaan. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Witanto, D. Y. (2015). Hukum jaminan fidusia dalam perjanjian pembiayaan konsumen. Mandar Maju.
Zamroh, S., Hidayat, M., & Prasetyo, A. (2024). Legal analysis of debt collector liability in fiduciary collateral execution after Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan, 12(1), 88–104
