Kontrak asuransi jiwa merupakan suatu perlimpahan resiko, maka inti dartkontrak tersebut adalah mengenai uang pertanggungan yang akan diterima danpremi yang harus dibayar pada waktu yang telah ditentukan dan disepakati dalamkontrak tersebut; dengan demikian, kontrak asuransi dapat dikatakan sebagaisuatu perjanjian yang mengandung hak dan kewajiban tiap pihak dalam kontraktersebut. Para pihak tersebut adalah pertama - penanggung atau asurandor, yaituorang atau badan hukum - perusahaan asuransi yang bersedia mengambil alih danI atau menerima resiko, dalam bentuk pembayaran kerugian. dan yang kedua -tertanggung yang berkewajiban membayar premi dan menerima penggantiankerugian apabila terjadi suatu peristiwa yang telah ditentukan pula dalam kontraktersebut. Akan tetapi, pihak tertanggung dapat mengajukan perubahan terhadapketentuan dalam polisnya, dengan mnegajukan kepada pihak perusahaan asuransiuntuk merubah polis tersebut menjadi polis bebas premi ataupun memperkeciljumlah premi sesuai kemampuan tertanggung berdasarkan kesepakatan keduabelah pihak ; apabrl:a terjadi suatu perselisihan atau sengketa, maka pihaktertanggung dapat mengajukan ke pengadilan negeri atau melalui Arbitrase sesuaidengan Pasal 16 Keputusan Menteri Keuangan No: 422IKMR/0612003 yangmelarang adanyapembatasan upaya hukum bagipara pihak.

Fidusia merupakan pengalihan hak kepemilikan suatu benda atas dasar kepercayaan dengan ketentuan bahwa benda yang hak kepemilikannya dialihkan tersebut tetap dalam penguasaan pemilik benda. Objek jaminan fidusia dapat disita oleh negara jika digunakan untuk melakukan perbuatan melawan hukum. Seperti kasus yang menimpa PT Astra Sedaya Finance, sebagai perusahaan pembiayaan yang merasa telah dirugikan akibat benda jaminan fidusia yang disita negara dari tangan pemberi fidusia selaku debitur karena yang bersangkutan melakukan perbuatan hukun kejahatan llegal logging.yang mengakibatkan benda objek jaminan dirampas oleh negara. Perampasan yang dilakukan oleh negara terhadap objek jaminan dalam kasus illegal logging ini tidak bertentangan dengan droit de suite yang dimiliki penerima fidusia. Hal ini dikarenakan dengan adanya sifat droit de suite tersebut perusahaan pembiayaan sebagai penerima fidusia tidak kehilangan haknya untuk menuntut pelunasan utang pemberi fidusia apabila pemberi fidusia wanprestasi. Perlindungan hukum bagi kreditur dalam hal benda jaminan dirampas oleh negara, dapat diuraikan sebagai berikut bahwa, (1) debitur wajib menyediakan jaminan pengganti yang setara nilainya dengan barang yang dirampas oleh negara; (2) mewajibkan kepada debitur (pemberi jaminan fidusia) supaya melunasi utangnya.

This research was conducted to analyze the granting of credit by the Bank as the creditor to the debtor with land as collateral to the bank if something goes wrong with what was expected. If a credit problem occurs because the debtor is incapacitated or because the debtor has failed in business which results in reduced income so that obligations cannot be fulfilled, the Mortgage Law (UUHT) exists to provide legal certainty for land rights including collateral rights to land. Efforts made by the bank as a creditor if the debtor defaults in order to obtain repayment due to bad credit, namely by executing one of them through an auction. The research method uses normative research with a statutory approach and a concept approach. This research resulted that the execution of mortgage objects through auctions is still not in accordance with the principles of proportionality and legal protection that can be given to debtors, namely repressive and preventive legal protection. In its development, the fact is that in the implementation of executions carried out by creditors, the proceeds from selling mortgage objects through auction execution are often below market prices and do not give the debtor the opportunity sell mortgage objects privately.  Regarding this matter, Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Mortgage Law (UUHT) has actually given a sufficient portion of rights  the debtor for the sale of mortgage objects according to market prices, but this is limited by the "on agreement" norm, which actually hinders sales under the contract.

This research was conducted to analyze the granting of credit by the Bank as the creditor to the debtor with land as collateral to the bank if something goes wrong with what was expected. If a credit problem occurs because the debtor is incapacitated or because the debtor has failed in business which results in reduced income so that obligations cannot be fulfilled, the Mortgage Law (UUHT) exists to provide legal certainty for land rights including collateral rights to land. Efforts made by the bank as a creditor if the debtor defaults in order to obtain repayment due to bad credit, namely by executing one of them through an auction. The research method uses normative research with a statutory approach and a concept approach. This research resulted that the execution of mortgage objects through auctions is still not in accordance with the principles of proportionality and legal protection that can be given to debtors, namely repressive and preventive legal protection. In its development, the fact is that in the implementation of executions carried out by creditors, the proceeds from selling mortgage objects through auction execution are often below market prices and do not give the debtor the opportunity sell mortgage objects privately.  Regarding this matter, Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Mortgage Law (UUHT) has actually given a sufficient portion of rights  the debtor for the sale of mortgage objects according to market prices, but this is limited by the "on agreement" norm, which actually hinders sales under the contract.

The background of writing this paper is due to the fact that zakat is obligatory for every Muslim who has fulfilled certain conditions. In addition, zakat is a social charity activity for the social and humanitarian fields, this is very strategic and very influential in the economic development of the people. For this reason, in order to optimize zakat in Indonesia, the government established Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 23 of 2011 concerning Zakat Management. In this case LAZNAS Baitul Maal Hidayatullah East Java Representative must carry out their duties and responsibilities both from planning, collecting, distributing and utilizing zakat. The issues raised in this writing are to see whether Zakat Management at Laznas Baitul Maal Hidayatullah Representative of East Java has implemented the Zakat Institution Accountability Principle based on Law Number 23 of 2011 and whether the Amil Zakat Institution at Laznas Baitul Maal Hidayatullah Representative of East Java has been transparent in its governance managing zakat based on Law Number 23 of 2011. As for this study, the authors used a research method with a normative juridical research type and used qualitative methods. From this study the authors draw the conclusion that LAZNAS Baitul Maal Hidayatullah Representative of East Java applies the principle of accountability in terms of programs that have been completed and programs that will be implemented but unfortunately for indicators regarding the system of rewards and sanctions as well as performance achievements on a regular basis this has not been informed through the Baitul Maal Hidayatullah website. The form of transparency carried out by LAZNAS Baitul Maal Hidayatullah is good regarding reporting donations for certain activities, but if the annual balance sheet report has not been displayed on the website, further transparency is still needed