OBSTACLES TO SIMPLE PROOF IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIO PAULIANA

Study in Bankruptcy Procedural Law

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the obstacles arising from the application of simple proof in the implementation of actio pauliana in procedural bankruptcy law in Indonesia. Actio pauliana, as a legal effort to cancel the Debtor's legal actions that are detrimental to the Creditor, requires the fulfillment of six cumulative elements. However, the court proceedings in the Commercial Court, which are based on the principle of simple evidence, create substantive challenges for the Curator as the party bears the burden of evidence. Through a normative legal research method, this study concludes that the complexity of the elements of actio pauliana, especially the elements of knowing or should have known, is difficult to prove using only simple proof standards. The ambiguity of the definition and limitations of simple proof in the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU has resulted in subjective interpretations among judges, which ultimately leads to legal uncertainty and variations in decisions. As a result, the effectiveness of actio pauliana as an instrument of protection for creditors is not optimal. Therefore, this study recommends the need for regulatory changes to clarify the meaning of simple proof and consider exceptions to its application to complex elements of actio pauliana