从司法角度看解决刑事没收与一般破产财产没收规范冲突的构想

Suci Hati Handayani, N. Sambas, Lina Jamila
{"title":"从司法角度看解决刑事没收与一般破产财产没收规范冲突的构想","authors":"Suci Hati Handayani, N. Sambas, Lina Jamila","doi":"10.37899/journal-la-sociale.v5i4.1244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the scope of business, business actors, both individuals and legal entities, often borrow money (debt) with the aim of obtaining capital intended for the continuity of their business activities. In practice, often a debtor fails to fulfil his obligations or achievements, not because it is caused by force majeure (overmatch). Such a situation is called default. In Bankruptcy Law, there is a type of confiscation, namely general confiscation. In connection with that, there is a conflict of norms between the provisions of general confiscation in Article 31 paragraph (2) of Law No. 37 of 2004 with the provisions of criminal confiscation / confiscation in Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This research method uses normative juridical and empirical juridical approaches. The data used in legal research are primary data and secondary data. The results of this study, the Government as the Regulator is expected to immediately make a legal formulation policy in connection with the general confiscation of bankruptcy as regulated in Law No. 37 of 2004 and criminal confiscation as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code and other related regulations, and in order to seek justice in law enforcement, especially related to confiscation of bankruptcy property, in essence the provisions of laws and regulations do not contradict each other, must be in harmony in order to ensure legal certainty and legal protection in its implementation. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the two confiscation provisions regulated in the two regulations, especially the general bankruptcy confiscation provisions regulated in Article 31 of Law No. 37 of 2004.","PeriodicalId":504371,"journal":{"name":"Journal La Sociale","volume":"32 26","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Concept of Resolving the Conflict of Norms Between Criminal Confiscation and General Bankruptcy Confiscation of Bankruptcy Assets Viewed from the Perspective of Justice\",\"authors\":\"Suci Hati Handayani, N. Sambas, Lina Jamila\",\"doi\":\"10.37899/journal-la-sociale.v5i4.1244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the scope of business, business actors, both individuals and legal entities, often borrow money (debt) with the aim of obtaining capital intended for the continuity of their business activities. In practice, often a debtor fails to fulfil his obligations or achievements, not because it is caused by force majeure (overmatch). Such a situation is called default. In Bankruptcy Law, there is a type of confiscation, namely general confiscation. In connection with that, there is a conflict of norms between the provisions of general confiscation in Article 31 paragraph (2) of Law No. 37 of 2004 with the provisions of criminal confiscation / confiscation in Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This research method uses normative juridical and empirical juridical approaches. The data used in legal research are primary data and secondary data. The results of this study, the Government as the Regulator is expected to immediately make a legal formulation policy in connection with the general confiscation of bankruptcy as regulated in Law No. 37 of 2004 and criminal confiscation as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code and other related regulations, and in order to seek justice in law enforcement, especially related to confiscation of bankruptcy property, in essence the provisions of laws and regulations do not contradict each other, must be in harmony in order to ensure legal certainty and legal protection in its implementation. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the two confiscation provisions regulated in the two regulations, especially the general bankruptcy confiscation provisions regulated in Article 31 of Law No. 37 of 2004.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal La Sociale\",\"volume\":\"32 26\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal La Sociale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37899/journal-la-sociale.v5i4.1244\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal La Sociale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37899/journal-la-sociale.v5i4.1244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在商业活动中,企业行为人(包括个人和法人实体)经常会借钱(债务),目的是获得资金以继续开展业务活动。在实践中,债务人往往不是因为不可抗力(超配)而无法履行其义务或成就。这种情况被称为违约。破产法》中有一种没收,即一般没收。因此,2004 年第 37 号法律第 31 条第 2 款关于一般没收的规定与《刑事诉讼法》第 39 条第 2 款关于刑事没收/充公的规定之间存在规范冲突。本研究方法采用规范法学和实证法学方法。法律研究中使用的数据包括一手数据和二手数据。从本研究的结果来看,作为监管者的政府应立即制定与 2004 年第 37 号法律规定的一般破产没收和《刑事诉讼法》及其他相关法规规定的刑事没收相关的法律制定政策,并在执法中寻求公正,特别是与破产财产没收相关的法律制定政策,实质上法律法规的规定并不相互矛盾,必须协调一致,才能确保其在执行中的法律确定性和法律保护。因此,有必要对两部法规中规定的两个没收条款进行修改,特别是 2004 年第 37 号法律第 31 条规定的一般破产财产没收条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Concept of Resolving the Conflict of Norms Between Criminal Confiscation and General Bankruptcy Confiscation of Bankruptcy Assets Viewed from the Perspective of Justice
In the scope of business, business actors, both individuals and legal entities, often borrow money (debt) with the aim of obtaining capital intended for the continuity of their business activities. In practice, often a debtor fails to fulfil his obligations or achievements, not because it is caused by force majeure (overmatch). Such a situation is called default. In Bankruptcy Law, there is a type of confiscation, namely general confiscation. In connection with that, there is a conflict of norms between the provisions of general confiscation in Article 31 paragraph (2) of Law No. 37 of 2004 with the provisions of criminal confiscation / confiscation in Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This research method uses normative juridical and empirical juridical approaches. The data used in legal research are primary data and secondary data. The results of this study, the Government as the Regulator is expected to immediately make a legal formulation policy in connection with the general confiscation of bankruptcy as regulated in Law No. 37 of 2004 and criminal confiscation as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code and other related regulations, and in order to seek justice in law enforcement, especially related to confiscation of bankruptcy property, in essence the provisions of laws and regulations do not contradict each other, must be in harmony in order to ensure legal certainty and legal protection in its implementation. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the two confiscation provisions regulated in the two regulations, especially the general bankruptcy confiscation provisions regulated in Article 31 of Law No. 37 of 2004.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信