Alistiqomah, Farida (2025) URGENSI PENGATURAN DAN PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA DALAM PRAKTIK NOMINEE ARRANGEMENT (SAHAM PINJAM NAMA) SEBAGAI SARANA MENYEMBUNYIKAN HASIL TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI. S1 thesis, UNIVERSITAS SULTAN AGENG TIRTAYASA.
![[img]](https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
FARIDA ALISTIQOMAH_1111210149_FULL TEXT.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
FARIDA ALISTIQOMAH_1111210149_01.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
FARIDA ALISTIQOMAH_1111210149_02.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (446kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
FARIDA ALISTIQOMAH_1111210149_03.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (506kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
FARIDA ALISTIQOMAH_1111210149_04.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (571kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
FARIDA ALISTIQOMAH_1111210149_05.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (197kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
FARIDA ALISTIQOMAH_1111210149_REFF.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (437kB) | Request a copy |
|
Text
FARIDA ALISTIQOMAH_1111210149_LAMP.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (316kB) | Request a copy |
Abstract
Nominee arrangement merupakan praktik peminjaman nama dalam kepemilikan saham, di mana terdapat pemisahan antara pemilik formal (nominee) dan pemilik substantif (beneficial owner). Praktik ini muncul seiring dengan semakin kompleksnya kegiatan ekonomi dan investasi lintas negara. Namun, dalam praktiknya di Indonesia, Skema ini kerap disalahgunakan untuk menyembunyikan hasil tindak pidana korupsi. Penelitian ini membahas urgensi pengaturan nominee arrangement serta pertanggungjawaban pidana para pihak yang terlibat. Metode penelitian menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan konseptual dan perbandingan hukum dengan negara Thailand dan Singapura. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia belum memiliki pengaturan khusus mengenai nominee arrangement. Ketentuan yang ada hanya terserak pada Undang-Undanag Perseroan Terbatas, Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal, dan Peraturan Presiden Nomor 13 Tahun 2018 terkait prinsip beneficial ownership, namun sifatnya masih administratif. Sanksi yang berlaku selama ini hanya sebatas batalnya perjanjian, sedangkan pertanggungjawaban pidana tetap kembali ke delik asal, yakni tindak pidana korupsi (UU Tipikor) dan tindak pidana pencucian uang (UU TPPU). Berbeda dengan Thailand yang mengatur secara tegas dengan ancaman pidana khusus dan Singapura yang menegaskan terkait transparansi Beneficial Owner. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan regulasi komprehensif mengenai nominee arrangement guna menutup celah hukum, memperkuat transparansi beneficial ownership, serta mendukung efektivitas pemberantasan korupsi di Indonesia. nominee arrangement, beneficial owner, korupsi
| Item Type: | Thesis (S1) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributors: |
|
|||||||||
| Additional Information: | Nominee arrangement refers to the practice of name borrowing in share ownership, where there is a separation between the formal owner (nominee) and the substantive owner (beneficial owner). This practice has emerged alongside the increasing complexity of cross-border economic and investment activities. However, in practice, particularly in Indonesia, this scheme is often misused to conceal the proceeds of corruption crimes. This study discusses the urgency of regulating nominee arrangements as well as the criminal liability of parties involved. The research method employs a normative juridical approach, incorporating both conceptual and comparative legal approaches with Thailand and Singapore. The findings indicate that Indonesia does not yet have specific regulations governing nominee arrangements. Existing provisions are scattered across the Company Law, the Capital Market Law, and Presidential Regulation No. 13 of 2018 regarding the principle of beneficial ownership; however, these are still administrative in nature. Current sanctions are limited to the nullification of agreements, while criminal liability still refers back to the predicate offense, namely corruption (as regulated under the Anti-Corruption Law) and money laundering (as regulated under the Anti-Money Laundering Law).In contrast, Thailand explicitly regulates nominee arrangements with specific criminal penalties, while Singapore emphasizes transparency regarding beneficial ownership. Therefore, a comprehensive regulation on nominee arrangements is necessary to close legal loopholes, strengthen beneficial ownership transparency, and support the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts in Indonesia. nominee arrangement, beneficial owner, corruption | |||||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | nominee arrangement, beneficial owner, korupsi nominee arrangement, beneficial owner, corruption | |||||||||
| Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) | |||||||||
| Divisions: | 01-Fakultas Hukum | |||||||||
| Depositing User: | Ms. Farida Alistiqomah | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 08 Jan 2026 02:25 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 08 Jan 2026 02:25 | |||||||||
| URI: | http://eprints.untirta.ac.id/id/eprint/56851 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |