<![CDATA[This study addresses the critical legal conflict arising when collateral accepted by a bona fide pawn company is later identified as criminal proceeds. The background highlights the inherent clash between the creditor’s preferential right (droit de suite), which aims to secure debt repayment under civil law, and the victim’s absolute right to restitution (revindication) under criminal law enforcement. The purpose is to critically analyze the recent East Jakarta District Court Decision No. 332/Pid.B/2023/PN.Jkt.Tim, which ordered the return of the collateral to the victim without providing any compensation to the compliant pawn institution, severely undermining legal certainty. The research utilized a rigorous normative juridical method, employing both case and conceptual approaches to analyze primary legal instruments, including the Civil Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the strict CDD/KYC requirements detailed in OJK Regulation No. 8 of 2023. The results indicate that the court’s singular focus on criminal restitution effectively extinguished the pawn company's property rights. The failure to award compensation signifies that objective good faith, even when rigorously evidenced by regulatory compliance, was deemed insufficient to secure financial protection, directly contradicting the doctrine of the valid pledge agreement under Article 1152(4) of the Civil Code. The study concludes that the Supreme Court must issue mandatory guidance (SEMA) to enforce compensation for the principal loan to compliant bona fide creditors prior to collateral restitution, which is necessary for achieving judicial harmonization and strengthening the stability and integrity of the financial services sector.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
