Analisis Yuridis terhadap Penjualan Harta Pailit yang Mudah Rusak di Bawah Nilai Likuidasi dalam Proses Kepailitan Juridical Analysis of the Sale of Perishable Bankruptcy Estate Assets below Liquidation Value in Bankruptcy Proceedings

Crossmark

Article Sidebar

Page Numbers: 221-236
Download PDF
Published: May 30, 2026
Digital Object Identifier: 10.58578/ahkam.v5i3.10324
Save this to:
Save to Mendeley Download RIS

Article Metrics:
Viewed: 59 times
Downloaded: 52 times
Article can trace at:

Author Fee:
Free Publication Fees for Foreign Researchers (USD 0.00)
Check for article on SINTA:

LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers

Connected Papers:
Connected Papers


Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.


Authors:
Rafshahdy Azari Soediro1*
Copyright :

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.

Explore Our Journals
Find the journal that best fits your research. If this journal does not match your manuscript’s scope, explore our portfolio below to select a more suitable publication venue.

Main Article Content

Rafshahdy Azari Soediro
Universitas Gadjah Mada

Abstract

The sale of bankruptcy assets is an important stage in the settlement of the bankruptcy estate to fulfill payments to creditors. In bankruptcy practice in Indonesia, the sale of perishable bankruptcy assets below liquidation value by the receiver raises legal issues concerning the validity of the receiver’s actions and the limits of their authority under Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK PKPU). This study aims to analyze the regulation of the sale of perishable bankruptcy assets below liquidation value from the perspective of the UUK PKPU and to examine the validity of the receiver’s actions in such sales. This study used a normative juridical legal method with statutory and conceptual approaches. Legal materials were obtained through a literature study of laws and regulations, journals, and other relevant provisions, then analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The results show that Article 107 of the UUK PKPU grants discretion to the receiver to sell perishable objects in order to prevent a decline in the value of bankruptcy assets. However, Article 185 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the UUK PKPU still require that the sale of bankruptcy assets must first be conducted publicly through an auction mechanism. If the auction fails and is proven by auction minutes, a private sale may be conducted with the permission of the Supervisory Judge. Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 109/KMA/SK/IV/2020 also affirms that the private sale value must not be below the liquidation price. Thus, the sale of perishable bankruptcy assets below liquidation value can only be legally justified if there is an urgent condition that clearly threatens the loss of the economic value of the bankruptcy assets, is carried out in good faith, obtains permission from the Supervisory Judge, does not harm the bankruptcy estate, and is intended to protect the rights and interests of creditors. This study contributes to strengthening bankruptcy law studies, particularly concerning the limits of the receiver’s discretion in settling perishable bankruptcy assets.

Keywords:
Share Article:

Citation Metrics:

Scopus

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citation Metrics & Similar Scopus Articles

Data source Crossref
0
citations
Citation counts are source-specific and may differ because database coverage, reference matching, and update schedules are different. Counts are not added together. Crossref values represent citation links registered and matched by Crossref.
Check Secondary Documents in Scopus
Open this article in Scopus, then check the Secondary documents tab. Use Manual Citation Fallback only for counts you have verified manually.
Open in Scopus
Similar Scopus Articles
Scopus
  1. Couto M. (2026)
    Exploiting topic analysis models to explore psychological dimensions in social media data
    Scientific Reports, 16(1)
  2. Ricaldi Echevarria M.L. (2026)
    Educational inequalities in academic performance in secondary education in Peru: a multilevel analysis
    Praxis Educativa, 21
  3. López-Rodríguez M.I. (2026)
    Evaluation of patient satisfaction in hospital emergency services and major outpatient surgery
    Journal of Healthcare Quality Research, 41(6)

Article Details

How to Cite
Soediro, R. A. (2026). Analisis Yuridis terhadap Penjualan Harta Pailit yang Mudah Rusak di Bawah Nilai Likuidasi dalam Proses Kepailitan. AHKAM, 5(3), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.58578/ahkam.v5i3.10324

Creative Commons License
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

References

Al Mufti, M. Z. (2016). Tanggung Jawab Kurator dalam Penjualan Harta Pailit di Bawah Harga Pasar. Jurnal Lex Renaissance, 1(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol1.iss1.art6

Al Mursyid, M. Y. (2021). Akta Peralihan Harta Pailit Berupa Benda Tetap yang Dijual Tanpa Lelang oleh Kurator. Officium Notarium, 1(2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.20885/JON.vol1.iss2.art3

Aprita, S., & Qosim, S. (2022). Optimalisasi Wewenang dan Tanggung Jawab Hakim Pengawas dalam Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia. Jurnal Ius Constituendum, 7(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.26623/jic.v7i2.3963

Arimba, C. I. (2023). Tanggung Jawab Hakim Pengawas terhadap Harta Pailit. Begawan Abioso, 14(2), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.37893/abioso.v14i2.708

Asyidqi, A. T., Safitri, N., Suryanti, N., & Yuanitasari, D. (2023). Upaya Hukum Bagi Pihak Debitur atas Kesalahan Penaksiran Nilai Utang oleh Kurator Berdasarkan Hukum Kepailitan. Jurnal Tana Mana, 4(2), 230–238. https://doi.org/10.33648/jtm.v4i2.278

Bangun, M. F., Fitrian, A., & TW, G. H. (2022). Perlindungan Hukum Kreditor atas Pembagian Hasil Pemberesan Harta Pailit oleh Kurator. SALAM: Jurnal Sosial dan Budaya Syar-i, 9(6), 1769–1782. https://doi.org/10.15408/sjsbs.v9i5.27737

Fuady, M. (2017). Hukum Pailit dalam Teori & Praktek. PT Citra Aditya Bakti.

Herlina, H., Abbas, I., & Risma, A. (2022). Tanggung Jawab Hukum Kurator atas Pengurusan dan Pemberesan Harta Pailit. Qawanin Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.56087/qawaninjih.v3i2.375

Hidayat, M. T. (2015). Penyelesaian Sengketa Akibat Kesalahan Kurator dari Berkurangnya Harta Debitur Pailit yang Merugikan Pihak Kreditur dalam Kepailitan. Al-Adl: Jurnal Hukum, 7(14), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.31602/al-adl.v7i14.226

Kartoningrat, R. B., Marzuki, P. M., & Shubhan, M. H. (2021). Prinsip Independensi dan Pertanggung Jawaban Kurator dalam Pengurusan dan Pemberesan Harta Pailit. Rechtidee, 16(1), 37–64. https://doi.org/10.21107/ri.v16i1.10165

Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum (Edisi revisi). Prenadamedia Group.

Nola, L. F. (2018). Mafia Kepailitan dalam Penjualan Harta Pailit. Jurnal Kajian, 23(3), 211–223. https://vs-jurnal.dpr.go.id/index.php/kajian/article/view/1883

Priftadi, M. A. R., Yuliawan, I., Latif, M., & Astuti, E. K. (2026). Pertanggungjawaban Kurator dalam Pengurusan Kepailitan yang Mengedepankan Prinsip Independen Berdasarkan UU Nomor 37 Tahun 2004. J-CEKI: Jurnal Cendekia Ilmiah, 5(3), 2538–2548. https://al-haramjournal.id/index.php/J-CEKI/article/download/16715/11080

Ratibulava, R. (2020). Perlindungan Hukum Debitor Pailit atas Berlarut-Larut Pengurusan dan Pemberesan Harta Pailit oleh Kurator. Jurist-Diction, 3(5), 1883–1904. https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v3i5.21984

Republik Indonesia. (2004). Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/40784

Saraya, S., Baso, F., Nirwana, M. A., Salam, S., Firmansyah, Putra, S. K., Ukas, Sudrajat, S. A., Tomayahu, N. S., Mirfa, E., & Risdiana. (2025). Hukum Kepailitan. Gita Lentera.

Siahaan, Y. T. B., & Silaen, A. P. (2024). Analisis Yuridis Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Kurator terhadap Tindak Pidana Penggelapan dalam Proses Pemberesan Harta Pailit. Law, Development & Justice Review, 7(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.14710/ldjr.7.2024.175-191

Simandalahi, E. R., & Habeahan, B. (2025). Tanggung Jawab Kurator atas Berkurangnya Nilai Harta Pailit (Boedel Pailit) Debitur Berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Jurnal Media Informatika, 6(2), 1250–1254. https://doi.org/10.55338/jumin.v6i2.5418

Sjahdeini, S. R. (2016). Sejarah, Asas, dan Teori Hukum Kepailitan: Memahami Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (Edisi kedua). Prenadamedia Group.

Syahputra, M. A., & Hoesein, Z. A. (2025). Optimalisasi Tanggung Jawab Kurator dalam Pengelolaan Harta Pailit Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004. Jurnal Retentum, 7(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.46930/retentum.v7i1.5274

Yusuf, M. I. (2024). Peranan Kurator dalam Menjamin Kepastian Hukum Kreditur Pada Kepailitan Perseroan Terbatas. Jurnal Jurisprudentia: HAM dan Ilmu Hukum, 7(2), 7–23. https://jurisprudentia.bunghatta.ac.id/index.php/jurisprudentia/article/view/245