Moh. Nurul Huda
Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Legal Uncertainty in Dispute Resolution of Ijarah Muntahiya Bi al-Tamlik Contracts in Indonesia: A ḥifẓ al-māl Perspective Moh. Nurul Huda; Bambang Tri Bawono; Gunarto Gunarto; M. Dias Saktiawan
Jurnal Ilmiah Mizani: Wacana Hukum, Ekonomi Dan Keagamaan Vol 12, No 2 (2025): October
Publisher : Faculty of Sharia (Islamic Law) at Fatmawati Sukarno State Islamic University Bengkulu

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29300/mzn.v12i2.8952

Abstract

Legal uncertainty in the construction of ijarah muntahiya bi al-tamlik (IMBT) contracts within the Compilation of Sharia Economic Law (KHES) arises in two areas. First, ambiguity occurs in the transfer of ownership at the end of the lease term, which may use either a sale or a hibah (grant) scheme. Second, dispute resolution is often implemented disproportionately, causing financial harm to the musta’jir. This study employs normative juridical research with a statutory approach, as inconsistencies are found between legislation and fundamental legal principles. The findings indicate that ownership transfer in IMBT contracts should only be carried out through a sale mechanism. Using hibah is inconsistent with its classification as a tabarru’ contract and contradicts Article 362 of KHES. Moreover, dispute resolution should not treat the musta’jir as indebted and force the sale of the leased object before the contract term ends. Instead, proportional penalties, explicitly stipulated in the contract, provide a fairer mechanism. These results highlight the urgency of reformulating IMBT contract practice in Indonesia. For Sharia financial institutions, implementing clearer ownership transfer rules and fair dispute resolution mechanisms will enhance legal certainty, protect the parties involved, and strengthen public trust in Sharia-compliant financial products.
Quo Vadis: Payment of Compensation as an Alternative to Sanctions for Corruption Crimes Harming State Finances Bambang Tri Bawono; Moh. Nurul Huda
Law Development Journal Vol 8, No 2 (2026): June 2026
Publisher : Universitas Islam Sultan Agung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30659/ldj.8.2.842-853

Abstract

Efforts to eradicate corruption through enforcement actions require high costs and overcapacity of prisons are one of the fundamental problems in handling corruption crimes in Indonesia. Based on this, new issues have emerged so that law enforcement efforts against the eradication of corruption are oriented towards the implementation of compensation to break the chain of state financial losses caused by corruption crimes. The purpose of the study is to analyze the construction of eradication of corruption crimes and the payment of compensation as an alternative to sanctions for corruption crimes. The type of research used is normative legal research, using analytical descriptive specifications and requiring primary data and secondary data. The results of the study show that compensation for corruption crimes is included in the additional type of crime, so this type of crime can only be included alternatively and cannot be when it is not accompanied by the main crime. Moreover, in the provisions of Article 4 of Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, there is an article provision that expressly states that the return of state financial losses does not abolish the conviction of the perpetrators of corruption crimes and is only a mitigating factor, so the payment of compensation cannot be used as an alternative to sanctions for corruption crimes that harm state finances However, it must be accompanied by a principal crime.