Illegal lending practices in Pinolosian Subdistrict raise legal issues concerning the validity of loan agreements and their consequences for contractual performance, collateral ownership, and debt collection. This study aims to analyze the invalidity of illegal loan agreements under Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code and examine their legal consequences for loan principal, collateral, and the creditor’s civil liability. The research employs an empirical legal method with a socio-legal approach using interviews, observations, document analysis, and legal materials. The findings show that illegal loan agreements fail to satisfy the objective requirement of a lawful cause and are therefore null and void. Nevertheless, the principal amount received by the debtor remains repayable as actual performance, whereas interest, penalties, and additional charges have no binding legal effect. The collateral remains the debtor’s property, while debt collection through intimidation or unilateral seizure may constitute an unlawful act that gives rise to civil liability for the creditor. ABSTRAKPraktik pinjaman ilegal yang berkembang di Kecamatan Pinolosian menimbulkan persoalan mengenai keabsahan perjanjian dan konsekuensi hukumnya terhadap pelaksanaan prestasi, status barang jaminan, serta tindakan penagihan. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis ketidaksahan perjanjian pinjaman ilegal berdasarkan Pasal 1320 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata serta mengkaji akibat hukumnya terhadap uang pinjaman, barang jaminan, dan tanggung jawab perdata kreditur. Penelitian menggunakan metode hukum empiris dengan pendekatan yuridis-sosiologis melalui wawancara, observasi, studi dokumen, dan analisis bahan hukum. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perjanjian pinjaman ilegal tidak memenuhi syarat objektif berupa sebab yang halal sehingga batal demi hukum. Meskipun demikian, pokok pinjaman tetap wajib dikembalikan sebagai prestasi nyata, sedangkan bunga, denda, dan biaya tambahan tidak memiliki kekuatan mengikat. Barang jaminan tetap menjadi milik debitur, sementara penagihan melalui intimidasi atau penguasaan sepihak dapat dikualifikasikan sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum yang menimbulkan tanggung jawab perdata bagi kreditur.
Copyrights © 2026