Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Ekasakti Journal of law and Justice Jurnal Sakato Ekasakti Law Review
Tasman
Universitas Andalas
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Legal Responsibilities For The Insured Resulting From Delay In Insurance Broker Premium Deposit To The Insurer In The Insurance Agreement Tasman
Ekasakti Journal of Law and Justice Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025)
Publisher : Master of Law Program, Ekasakti University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.60034/twztm821

Abstract

The provisions for premium payments from insurance brokers to insurers are regulated in applicable laws and regulations. The provisions for insurance brokers to pay premiums to insurers are regulated by Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 70 of 2016 concerning the Implementation of Insurance Brokerage Companies, Reinsurance Brokerage Companies, and Insurance Loss Assessment Companies. The role of Insurance Brokers is quite important for the insured to be able to assist in paying premiums to insurers based on the regulated provisions. This is because insurance premiums in an insurance company are a company necessity in increasing company profits and can cover claims filed by the insured. However, there are problems in the field where late premium payments occur which are not the fault of the insured but rather the fault of the insurance broker who is late and will cause losses to the insured. In this case, the insured has legal remedies so that they can be given a good solution. This research is a legal research with a statute approach and an analytical approach. The results of this study explain that first, the legal efforts made by the insured regarding the dispute between the Insurance Broker and the Insurance Company (Insurer) are a result of the negligence of the insurance broker who did not pay the insured's policy premium. In fact, the insured considers that the Insurance Broker has carried out manipulative information actions as if there was no problem and finally the Policy was canceled unilaterally by the insurer. Second, the Insured did not clearly see the existing facts, especially the unilateral cancellation of the policy by the insurer that it is mandatory to be notified of the reasons for the cancellation. Thus, the insured's legal efforts through the criminal realm are only based on Article 31 paragraph (2) Jo. Article 75 of Law Number 40 of 2014 concerning Insurance. The recommendation is, it would be more appropriate for the appropriate legal efforts chosen by the Insured to be carried out through the Non-Litigation Path. Such as a special insurance dispute resolution forum through the Indonesian Insurance Arbitration Mediation Board (BMAI) which has been mandated through the Financial Services Authority Regulation Number. This aims to prove the alleged actions of the Insurance Broker who has been late in paying premiums due to his negligence to the Insurer. In this way, it will be more effective and independent in resolving civil disputes in the insurance industry.
Bank's Position as a Holder of Lien Objects Confiscated By The State From a Public Interest Perspective Ulfanora; Tasman
Jurnal Sakato Ekasakti Law Review Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): Jurnal Sakato Ekasakti Law Review (April)
Publisher : LPPM Universitas Ekasakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31933/7zmnr097

Abstract

Banking plays a strategic role in supporting national development through its financial intermediation function. One of the main instruments in banking activities is collateral, which provides legal certainty for creditors. However, problems arise when the collateral is seized by the state in corruption cases. The conflict between the bank's right of execution as the creditor holding the collateral and the state's interest in recovering assets resulting from corruption creates legal uncertainty that has a systemic impact on public trust in the banking sector. One form of uncertainty regarding bank collateral is the ease with which the state can seize the collateral for reasons of public interest. In this case, banks lack legal protection and strong legal certainty as the separatist party holding the collateral. The research results show, first, that Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2022 concerning Procedures for Resolving Objections from Good-Faith Third Parties to Decisions on Confiscation of Property Not Owned by the Defendant in Corruption Cases does not provide adequate protection for banks because it only accommodates third parties with physical ownership of the assets. Furthermore, Supreme Court Decision No. 540 K/Pdt/2022 reinforces the tendency to prioritize state interests, weakening the legal position of banks as collateral holders. As agents of development, banks have a public interest that should be protected by law to maintain national economic stability. Therefore, regulatory reform is needed that explicitly recognizes banks as third parties acting in good faith in the Banking Law. Furthermore, the position of banks as collateral holders in Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage Rights needs to be explicitly regulated by adding a norm or paragraph to Article 9 in Part III concerning Grantors and Holders of Mortgage Rights. Furthermore, there needs to be an exception in the Corruption Crime Law regarding the seizure of tangible and intangible movable assets that have become collateral objects by banks. This way, there is legal certainty for banks as creditors with separatist rights over material objects, allowing them to directly execute their collateral objects without the need for asset seizure by the state.
Co-Authors Ulfanora