Eksekusi Jaminan dalam Penawaran Efek Melalui Layanan Urun Dana Berbasis Teknologi Informasi

alternative financing for Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and start-ups seeking to develop their businesses through the issuance of debt securities or sukuk. In securities crowdfunding services, collateral may be provided to protect investors against the risk of issuer default. However, the extent of the organizer’s authority to act as investors’ representative in relation to collateral remains unclear, particularly regarding its legal position and authority to enforce collateral in the event of default. This issue requires a distinction between the organizer’s contractual authority to represent investors and the legal position required to exercise enforcement rights under collateral law. This study aims to analyze the legal position and authority of the organizer in collateral enforcement within securities crowdfunding services. This research uses a normative legal method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings show that Article 65 of Financial Services Authority Regulation (POJK) No. 17 of 2025 requires the organizer to act as investors’ proxy in offerings of debt securities or sukuk, including supervising, inspecting, and administering collateral. However, this representative authority does not automatically grant the organizer the authority to enforce collateral. In fiduciary security, Article 8 of Law No. 42 of 1999 allows fiduciary security to be granted to more than one fiduciary recipient or to their authorized proxies or representatives. Nevertheless, the legal position of the fiduciary recipient and the authority of its representative must be established in accordance with applicable fiduciary security law and registration requirements. The enforcement process must also comply with Articles 15 and 29, including the Constitutional Court’s interpretation regarding the determination of default and the voluntary surrender of collateral. Meanwhile, under mortgage rights, Article 9 of Law No. 4 of 1996 provides that a mortgage holder must be an individual or legal entity acting as a creditor, while Article 6 grants the right to sell the mortgaged property through public auction to the first mortgage holder. The organizer may act as a representative in the enforcement process based on a valid power of attorney from the party legally entitled to enforce the collateral. However, the organizer does not acquire the legal status of a mortgage holder merely by acting as investors’ representative. Therefore, legal uncertainty remains regarding the limits of the organizer’s authority to represent multiple investors in collateral enforcement. Clearer regulations are needed to ensure legal certainty in collateral enforcement within information technology-based securities crowdfunding services.