Illegal Confiscation Action of Items Outside The Object of Collateral Rights by Bank Muamalat

Abstract

This journal research is based on the lawsuit case of PT. Gigantica Trigano against PT. Bank Muamalat Indonesia, Tbk and other defendants. This contentiosa case is ongoing in the Bandung City Religious Court where the Plaintiff disputes the matter of his belongings that are not included in the object of mortgage rights that have been confiscated by the Religious Court at the request of Bank Muamalat. According to the Defendant's reasons, the confiscation process has been in accordance with their SOP (Standard Operational Procedure), but according to the plaintiff, the process has violated several applicable laws (Mortgage Law, Article 1365 of the Civil Code and others) and is not in accordance with sharia principles. This is certainly very much related to the quality of the Mortgage Right deed made by the Notary/PPAT where they often do not make clear details regarding what is the object of the mortgage right in the Mortgage Right Binding Deed. The formulation of the problem in this journal research is: can the bank confiscate objects that are not objects of mortgage rights; Often the Deed of Mortgage Binding made by a notary does not detail in detail what is related/attached to the object of the mortgage; how to make a good and correct mortgage deed and in accordance with the sharia principles applicable in Indonesia, so as not to cause harm to other people/debtors in the future. The research method used is the empirical normative legal research method by conducting a study of library materials to collect secondary data. Normative legal research is carried out by examining library materials (literature) which are secondary data while empirical research is by analyzing cases in cases at the Bandung PA, West Java. From the analysis that can be understood, there are often arbitrary actions carried out by Islamic banks against debtors which are categorized as Unlawful Acts that can harm others. The conclusion of this study is: the bank as a creditor may not confiscate objects/goods that are not objects of mortgage rights. The notary/PPAT should describe in detail what objects/goods are attached to the object of the mortgage right and the notary should make a Deed of Bonding of the Mortgage Right independently without siding with the bank that gave them the order, because in principle the one who pays for the notary's services is the debtor, not the bank.