The research is aimed to find out and analyze law effort conducted by PT. Bank
Mandiri TBK of Jayapura branch to complete debtor’s credit who conducted wanprestasi to
third party security. It is empiric juridical with qualitative descriptive method, that is describe
situation and condition examined is attributed to valid rule contents related to the title of the
research. The research data emphasized on the secondary data source as main data which
consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary law resource supported by the primary data which
is obtained from document study and interview on PT. Bank Mandiri Tbk of Jayapura
Branch.
The obtained data from the result of the research after qualitatively analyzed
showed that credit present mechanism on Bank Mandiri Tbk of Jayapura Branch was initially
with credit application proposed by customer. After all the determined requirements were
complete and correspond to valid requirements, then the credit application was agreed and
assigned by Head of Credit Department.
Further, the credit present implementation toward small and middle business with
right security on Bank Mandiri Tbk of Jayapura branch according to writer has been
correspond to valid legislation rule. It could be known by a procedure which must to be
passed by the debtors and the following are the requirements completed by the candidate of
debtor based on principles of credit present determined by the management of Bank Mandiri
Tbk of Jayapura branch.
The law effort which were implemented by Bank Mandiri Tbk of Jayapura Branch
were rescheduling, reconditioning, and restructuring, in addition there was other effort could
be conducted that is: combination (the combination of three kind of effort), security
confiscation (the last effort when customer didn’t have good intention or they were incapable
to pay their debt). In this case, Bank Mandiri Tbk of Jayapura branch as the creditor sold a
collateral auction that was used to a credit guarantee. Although the auction sale was claimed
by the third party as the owner of the collateral items, the execution collateral still ran. It is
because previously has been agreed that the third party’s land were used as the collateral and
the third party agreed it. The agreement was known by the bank party, therefore when there
was an accusation from the third party heir, the bank perceived that they didn’t break the
stipulation in the credit agreement.