The development of sharia fintech lending for three years has increased significantly. Starting from 2018 to 2020 there were twelve sharia fintech lending companies. The existence of sharia fintech lending is regulated by POJK Number: 77 / POJK.01 / 2016. This regulation has not yet developed the concept and operation of business activities, guarantees of certainty regarding the fulfillment of sharia principles, and legal protection of the implementation of sharia fintech lending, thus allowing risks that must be borne properly by the organizers and the fintech users themselves. This study is a normative legal research using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. This study material was obtained from a literature study, then analyzed in a prescriptive analytical manner for examination and discussion. The results of the analysis are interpreted using systematic, grammatical and teleological interpretation methods. The results of the study concluded that: 1) the collaboration of the contract concept in the DSN-MUI Fatwa Number: 117 / DSN-MUI / II / 2018 and the implementation / operation of business activities in POJK Number: 77 / POJK.01 / 2016 is a benchmark for sharia supervision in the implementation sharia fintech lending; 2) the function of supervising and guaranteeing the fulfillment of sharia principles by the Sharia Supervisory Board; and 3) legal protection in the implementation of sharia fintech lending is still weak, because the POJK Number 77 / POJK.01 / 2016 does not regulate business activities and operations, guarantee compliance with sharia principles, and sharia fintech lending dispute resolution.
Since 2018 to July 2022, the Ministry of Communication and Information has cut off access to 534,138 gambling content on various digital platforms. This very high number will continue to grow. One of the reasons for the rise of online gambling content is the mode that is used, namely the "bodong" investment mode. Society is promised with unreasonable profits. Blocking efforts are actually one way to prevent and protect the public. Criminal law has regulated gambling in the Criminal Code, as well as if it is done using technology media, it is regulated in the Information and Electronic Transaction Law. This paper examines the regulation of criminal law regarding online gambling in the present, and in the future. This normative law research uses a statutory, comparative, and conceptual approach with prescriptive analysis. The results show that the regulation of gambling in the Criminal Code does not regulate online gambling, the ITE Law still has weak juridical problems in juridical consequences. While in the Draft Criminal Code, it is actually regulated more comprehensively, namely by regulating criminal acts committed with technology in general provisions, but regarding gambling, the 2019 Criminal Code Concept with 2022, has a significant difference, namely in the 2022 Criminal Code concept there are exceptions to permit arrangements taking into account laws that apply in society. Gambling, which has been licensed by the government, has a negative impact on people's lives. The word “without permission” has a meaning that tends to be ambiguous and less relevant.
The background of the article is the contents of Article 59 paragraph (3) and explanation of paragraph (1) of the Law on Judicial Power. The article authorizes the District Court to implement the decision of the Sharia arbitration body on the resolution of Islamic economic disputes. The article and explanation of the verse contradicts the absolute authority of the Religious Courts regulated in Article 49 letter (i) of the Law on Religious Courts. This shows that, the legislators are not consistent in making laws and regulations, so that it creates legal uncertainty. By applying the normative legal research method to the statute approach and case approach, this article seeks to describe the phenomenon of legal conflicts that occur. From the in-depth analysis it can be concluded that the legal provisions regarding the implementation of the decision of the National Sharia Arbitration Board are regulated in the Arbitration Law, the Judicial Power Act and the Religious Courts Act. The legal substance of the provisions therein enables antinomy or legal conflicts. Antinomy settlement can use the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.