Reconciling Ownership Conflict Between Fiduciary Security and Leasing Law in Indonesia

Authors

  • Tajuddin Noor Islamic University of North Sumatera
  • Suhaila Zulkifli Prima Indonesia University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29303/ulrev.v10i1.502

Keywords:

Fiduciary Guarantee, Leasing, Legal Certainty, Justice, Normative Juridical Reconstruction

Abstract

The rapid expansion of Indonesia’s financing sector has intensified the use of leasing as an alternative to conventional credit systems. However, the integration of fiduciary security into leasing arrangements has generated a fundamental legal inconsistency concerning ownership. Under leasing law, ownership of the leased asset remains with the lessor during the contract period, whereas fiduciary law requires the debtor to possess ownership of the secured object. This study aims to examine and reconcile the ownership conflict between fiduciary security and leasing law in Indonesia.
This research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials consist of primary sources, including Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security and Minister of Finance Regulation No. 84/PMK.012/2006, as well as secondary sources such as legal doctrines and scholarly literature.
The findings reveal that the current application of fiduciary guarantees in leasing agreements creates a legal paradox, as lessees are not the legal owners of the leased assets but are positioned as fiduciary providers. This inconsistency results in legal uncertainty, weak enforceability, and imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties. To address this issue, this study proposes a normative reconstruction by clarifying the separation between ownership under leasing and fiduciary security. Fiduciary guarantees should only be imposed on assets legally owned by the lessee, while the leased object remains under the ownership of the lessor until the end of the contract term.
This study contributes to the development of Indonesian financial law by offering a coherent legal framework to resolve ownership conflicts between fiduciary security and leasing practices, thereby enhancing doctrinal clarity and regulatory consistency.

References

Anas, Khairul Azwar, en Johni Najwan. “Dispute Resolution in Consumer Financing Agreements for Bad Debts through the Fiduciary Guarantee Execution Process to Achieve Legal Certainty and Justice”. Formosa Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 4, no 9 (2025): 4483–4502.

Murianto, Agus. The Legal Balance of Debtors and Creditors as Objects of Fiduciary Guarantee in Party Execution Post-constitutional Court Decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019. Atlantis Press SARL, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-024-4.

Ningsih, Ayup Suran. “Creditor of Fiduciary Facing Bankruptcy, What Should They Do?” Diponegoro Law Review 10, no 1 (2025): 29–41. https://doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.10.1.2025.29-41.

Nur, Rafika. “Application of Criminal Sanctions Law Against Debt Collectors Withdrawing Fiduciary Guarantee Objects”. Journal of Legality 17, no 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.33756/jelta.v16i1.20295.

Permana, Recky Rizkiryanto, en Universitas Pasundan. “Legal Certainty on Fiduciary Guarantee Deed Based on Power of Attention Under the Leasing Agreement”. International Journal of Latin Notary 2, no 1 (2021): 19–30.

Permatasari, Novi Rizka, en Pujiyono Suwadi. “In Search of Forfeited Fiduciary Assurance: A Justice Approach”. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 33, no 2 (2025): 585–608.

Putri, Djadja. “Legal Certainty on The Execution of a Fiduciary Whose Movable Object Has Been Transferred on Third Parties”. Edunity 2, no 9 (2023): 1086–1102.

Sadewo, Imron, en Abdul Rokhim. “LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF LOSS OF FIDUCIARY GUARANTEE OBJECT IN BANK CREDIT AGREEMENT”. International Significance of Notary 3, no 1 (2023): 126–37.

Setyabudi, Bambang, en Anis Mashdurohatun. “Reconstruction of Legal Protection Regulations for Debtors and Third Parties in Credit Agreements with the Object of Fiduciary Based Guarantee”. Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 2, no 1 (2022): 520–26. https://doi.org/10.36348/sijlcj.2022.v05i12.002.

Sihombing, Krisna P, Hisar Siregar, en Jinner Sidauruk. “Analysis of Legal Protection against Buyers of Leasing Objects (Study of Law Number 42 of 1999 Concerning Fiduciary Guarantees)”. Formosa Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 4, no 2 (2025): 813–24.

Sofiani, Trianah, en Heris Suhendar. “The Settlement Model of Non-Performing Financing Which is More Effective and Legal Justice in Sharia Financing Companies”. Jurnal Hukum UNISSULA 40, no 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.26532/jh.v40i1.32794.

Sutanto, Christanty Leony, en Yeni Eta Widyanti. “Legal Analysis of Foreign Nationals in Fiduciary Guarantees: Between Banking Risks and Legal Vacuum”. Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Curup, Indonesia 5, no 1 (2025): 62–78.

Us, Us, Surya Nopendi, Anta Rini Utami, Universitas Syiah Kuala, en Banda Aceh. “Asset Seizure in Credit Sales from the Perspective of Sharia Business Ethics”. Journal of Mujaddid Nusantara 2, no 3 (2025): 1–14.

Usman, Rachmadi. “Ownership Rights Object to Fiduciary Guarantee as Collateral for Debt Responsibillity”. Russian Law Journal XI, no 4 (2023): 625–39.

Wijaya, Yeni, en Gunawan Djajaputra. “The Transfer of Marine Ship Ownership as an Immovable Object Based on Sale and Leaseback Agreement”. Return Journal 2, no 35 (2023).

Zulfikar, Riza. “Settlement Of Defaults In Restructuring Efforts In Credit Agreements At Bank Pasar Rembang (Case Study Decision Number: 7/Pdt.G/2021/Pn.Rbg)”. Jurnal Restorasi 1, no 02 (2023): 62–71.

Downloads

Published

30-04-2026

How to Cite

Tajuddin Noor, & Zulkifli, S. (2026). Reconciling Ownership Conflict Between Fiduciary Security and Leasing Law in Indonesia. Unram Law Review, 10(1), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.29303/ulrev.v10i1.502

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.