Tanggung Jawab Borrower atas Gagal Bayar pada Fintech Lending Tanifund
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29313/bcsls.v6i1.21839Keywords:
Fintech lending, Debitur, WanprestasiAbstract
Abstract. Fintech lending (LPBBTI) connects lenders and borrowers through electronic systems, giving rise to a lending and borrowing legal relationship that remains subject to Indonesian private law. One of the most frequent issues is borrower default. Under the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata), default is generally classified as breach of contract (wanprestasi), which may result in an obligation to perform the agreed prestation and/or to pay damages (costs, losses, and interest). However, fintech practice introduces new challenges: electronic contracts, a large number of parties, relatively small claim values, and collection processes that often depend on the platform’s operational mechanisms. The Tanifund case is relevant because when widespread default occurred and the platform’s license was revoked, lenders faced obstacles in recovering their funds, even though the borrower’s obligation does not normatively disappear. This article examines the legal structure of the parties’ relationship, the basis of borrower liability under the Civil Code (including the requirements of default, formal notice/somasi, damages, and exceptions such as force majeure), and how Financial Services Authority (OJK) regulations govern the organizer’s role, ethical collection standards, transparency duties, and complaint and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Abstrak. Fintech lending (LPBBTI) mempertemukan lender dan borrower melalui sistem elektronik, sehingga lahir hubungan hukum pinjam-meminjam yang pada intinya tetap tunduk pada hukum perdata. Masalah yang paling sering muncul adalah gagal bayar (default) oleh borrower. Secara KUHPerdata, gagal bayar itu masuk ranah wanprestasi dengan konsekuensi kewajiban pemenuhan prestasi dan/atau ganti rugi (biaya, kerugian, bunga). Namun, praktik fintech menimbulkan problem baru: kontraknya elektronik, para pihaknya banyak, nilainya bisa kecil, dan penagihan bergantung pada platform. Kasus Tanifund jadi contoh yang relevan karena ketika terjadi gagal bayar masif dan izin platform dicabut, lender kesulitan jalur pemulihan, sementara kewajiban borrower secara normatif sebenarnya tidak hilang. Tulisan ini membahas konstruksi hubungan hukum, dasar tanggung jawab borrower menurut KUHPerdata (termasuk syarat wanprestasi, somasi, ganti rugi, dan pengecualian seperti force majeure), serta bagaimana peraturan OJK mengatur peran penyelenggara, etika penagihan, transparansi, dan mekanisme pengaduan/penyelesaian sengketa.
References
Debi Masri, Roy Samuel Fernandus, Eko Putra Bangun, Yeltriana, & Ismed Batubara. (2025). Terhadap Dampak Perang Dagang Global terhadap Kontrak Bisnis Internasional. Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.29313/jrih.v5i2.8654
Dewi Andika Permatasari, & Mardian Putra Frans. (2025). Kerugian Negara dan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Kerugian BUMN : Analisis Pasal 3Y UU BUMN. Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.29313/jrih.v5i2.8525
Marly Meani Silalahi, Dewi Romantika Tinambunan, Johan Pardamean Simanjuntak, Manotar Sinaga, Murniwati Lase, Parlaungan Siahaan, & Dewi Pika Lumbanbatu. (2025). Analisis Yuridis Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Narkotika Melalui Metode Undercover Buy. Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.29313/jrih.v5i2.8532
Afif Noor and Ali Maskur, “The Legal Basis of Information Technology Based Cofinancing Services in Indonesia,” Walisongo Law Review (Walrev) 4, no. 2 (January 31, 2023): 131–60, https://doi.org/10.21580/walrev.2022.4.2.13520.
Asih, Cipto, and Latifah, “Perlindungan Hukum Lender Atas Gagal Bayar Dalam Fintech To Peer Lending,” April 13, 2023.
Isni oktaria, Abdul Muchlis, Sandy Suryady, and Tati Noviati. “Pengabdian Masyarakat Mengenal Fintech Dan Digitalisasi Keuangan Bersama Asosiasi Dosen Muda Indonesia.” Jurnal Abdi Masyarakat Multidisiplin 4, no. 2 (July 2025): 01–06. https://doi.org/10.56127/jammu.v4i2.2183.
Jamal, Aswirah, Suriyanti Mangkona, and Wahyudin Wahyudin. “Transformasi Industri Keuangan Melalui Perkembangan Teknologi Finansial (Fintech): Analisis Tantangan Dan Peluang.” Movere Journal 5, no. 02 (July 2023): 297–304. https://doi.org/10.53654/mv.v5i02.390.
Muhammad Tazil Ramadhan and Diana Wiyanti, “Peran Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Dalam Mengawasi Kegiatan Lembaga Bank Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 21 Tahun 2011 Dan Undang-Undang Perbankan Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 Terkait,” Bandung Conference Series: Law Studies 4, no. 1 (February 2024): 766–74, https://doi.org/10.29313/bcsls.v4i1.12484.
Muhammad Syahri Ramadhan, Dian Afrilia, and Muhammad Syaifuddin, “Urgensi Penguatan Sinkronisasi Kaidah Hukum Positif Dan Religi Dalam Pemanfaatan Pinjaman Online Di Indonesia,” Proceeding Conference on Da’wah and Communication Studies 3 (December 2024): 43–55, https://doi.org/10.61994/cdcs.v3i1.194.
Putra, “Kedudukan Para Pihak Dalam Aktivitas Fintech Peer to Peer Lending Di Indonesia,” April 25, 2024
Ryanson Donovan Sinaga, “Analisis Hukum Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli Aset Perusahaan: Studi Kasus Sengketa PT Busana Insan Sejahtera Dan Hai Seng,” Journal of Law, Education and Business 3, no. 1 (April 30, 2025): 637–44, https://doi.org/10.57235/jleb.v3i1.5914.
Siti Nurhasanah et al., “Tanggung Jawab Hukum Kreditur Dalam Kasus Cidera Janji Perjanjian Kredit: Studi Perbandingan KUHPerdata Dan Yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung,” Jurnal Hukum Malahayati 6, no. 1 (May 2025): 136–45, https://doi.org/10.33024/jhm.v6i1.20633
Yudhi Fahrian and Galih Tiasna Nihan, “Peran Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Sebagai Pengawas Fintech Dalam Penegakan Hukum Pidana Terhadap Praktik Pinjaman Online Ilegal Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Tahun 2011,” Justici 18, no. 1 (January 1, 2025): 29–39, https://doi.org/10.35449/justici.v18i1.886.
Yurida Zakky Umami and Anto Kustanto, “Akibat Hukum Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Gadai,” QISTIE 14, no. 2 (March 22, 2022): 13, https://doi.org/10.31942/jqi.v14i2.5597.
