MEDIASI HUKUM EKONOMI SYARIAH KELAS A - PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM AKAD MURABAHAH

Summary

The transcript details a mediation session involving a dispute over a murabahah (Islamic financing) contract between the plaintiff, Annisa, and the defendant, BMT. The plaintiff claims issues arose after missing payments, leading to a property auction that was not properly communicated. The mediator, acting as a judge, attempts to resolve the issue, with both sides presenting conflicting statements. The plaintiff insists the auction was handled incorrectly, citing irregularities in notifications and pressure from third parties. Ultimately, the mediator concludes that no agreement has been reached, and the matter will be escalated to the court.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker, Annisa Putri, introduces herself as the plaintiff in a legal case involving a murabaha agreement.
• 😀 Miranda Sutra Abdul Hikmah introduces herself as a mediator for the case, aiming to help resolve the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.
• 😀 Annisa Putri discusses the background of the murabaha agreement with BMT, mentioning a loan of 115,000,000 IDR with a 31-month repayment plan.
• 😀 The plaintiff faced financial difficulties starting from the 23rd installment, leading to reduced payments and communication with the defendant to renegotiate the terms.
• 😀 The plaintiff requested the defendant to provide a formal agreement for the murabaha transaction, including a letter of guarantee.
• 😀 The defendant acknowledges the plaintiff's initial ability to meet payments but claims there was a credit default after the 23rd installment.
• 😀 The defendant argues that despite some payments, the plaintiff did not meet the full installment requirement, leading to a default and triggering a legal auction process.
• 😀 The plaintiff disputes the legality of the auction, claiming that the notice was delayed and that the auction was not properly conducted.
• 😀 Further investigation revealed that the auction was not held as scheduled and that there were discrepancies in the auction notice and its execution.
• 😀 The mediator concludes that no agreement could be reached through mediation and decides to forward the case to the judge for further action.

Q & A

What is the nature of the dispute in the case?

The dispute centers around a murabaha financing agreement between the plaintiff, Annisa, and the defendant, BMT. The plaintiff claims issues with the auction process and insufficient communication regarding the foreclosure of the loan, while the defendant asserts that the plaintiff failed to fulfill her payment obligations, leading to the auction.

What was the original loan amount and terms of repayment?

Annisa received a loan of IDR 115,000,000 from BMT, with a repayment schedule of 31 months, each installment being approximately IDR 4,631,000. The loan was secured by a property certificate (SHM).

What issues did Annisa face in fulfilling her payment obligations?

Annisa faced financial losses in her business, making it difficult to meet the full loan repayments. By the 23rd installment, she was unable to pay the full amount and could only contribute IDR 1,500,000 towards her debt.

How did Annisa attempt to resolve her financial difficulties with BMT?

Annisa communicated with BMT, both verbally and in writing, requesting a new agreement for restructuring the murabaha loan. She also requested a formal agreement and the related documents from BMT to clarify the terms.

What is the crux of Annisa's complaint regarding the auction process?

Annisa claims that the auction process was irregular. She argues that she was not notified properly, and the auction notice was delayed. She also mentions discrepancies in the auction date and alleges that the auction was manipulated.

How did BMT respond to the claims about the auction process?

BMT claims they followed the necessary procedures and issued the auction notices according to the agreed terms. They argue that Annisa failed to meet her payment obligations, which necessitated the foreclosure and auction of the property.

What evidence did Annisa present regarding the auction irregularities?

Annisa presented evidence that the auction notice was delayed and that the auction did not take place as scheduled. She also found that the auction date was later than what was stated in the official documents and that certain parties involved in the auction exerted undue pressure on her.

What did Annisa discover when she visited the auction office?

When Annisa visited the auction office, she found that no auction had occurred as the documents suggested. She also learned that some individuals claiming to represent BMT or the auction house had attempted to pressure her into paying a redemption fee.

How did BMT justify their actions regarding the auction process?

BMT explained that they followed the legal and contractual procedures in conducting the auction. They asserted that they had informed Annisa of the auction and that the process was transparent and consistent with their obligations.

What was the mediator's conclusion after hearing both parties?

The mediator was unable to facilitate a resolution between the plaintiff and the defendant. The mediator found that no agreement was reached, and thus referred the case to a panel of judges for further legal action.