No, in the case of a secured commercial loan, your personal assets cannot be confiscated. The lender's recourse is limited to seizing the collaterals associated with the loan, and in certain situations, they may only recover a fraction, perhaps as low as 10%, of the collateral's value.
INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY FOR EXPATS IN INDONESIA
Bankruptcy in Indonesia
- Thread starter pantaiema
- Start date
Maybe, but in the Netherlands after foreclosure, one still is in debt to the bank, when the collateral does not yield enough money after the sale. One still needs to pay back the rest of the debt, even after passing away the family members needs to pay back the debt.
Whether your personal assets as an owner are protected from the company's debts and liabilities will depend on the company structure.
If the company structure is formed with limited liability, it offers limited liability protection to its owners, meaning that the personal assets of the owners are generally protected from the company's debts and liabilities. An example of a limited liability company is PT (Perseroan Terbatas) in Indonesia.
Example of a limited liability company structure in the Netherlands is BV (Besloten Vennootschap), or NV (Naamloze Vennootschap), in the UK PLC (Public Limited Company, UK), In the US a Corporation (Corp), or a Limited Liability Company (LLC). All these forms of company structures protect the owner from the company's debts and liabilities.
If it is UD (Usaha Dagang), Usaha perseroan, a sole trader, or sole proprietorship, your personal assets will not be protected. Almost all (if not all) company structures of conglomerates are formed with limited liability for obvious reasons.
If it is a personal loan, or you get the loan from a loan shark, the debt collector/loan shark will chase your personal asset to recover their money wherever you go until you drop.
Last edited:
Thanks for the info on limited liabilities, but I was let to believe the bankloan was a personal loan to Bob Hasan.
I believe that varies by jurisdiction.
Where did you get this information? Do you have a link to a reputable source?
The common understanding is that when a company is formed as limited liability, personal assets are shielded from the company's debts and responsibilities, which is why it is termed LIMITED LIABILITY. This safeguarding of personal assets is the core of limited liability, a principle that is generally applicable to most, if not all, companies worldwide. Exceptions to this rule are rare, typically arising in cases of suspected fraudulent activities or improper conduct, leading to an extended legal battle. The senior official at the government bank who approved the loan may be dragged in the case, which is something they would prefer to avoid at all costs.
Several members of Suharto's family and inner circle have defaulted on their debts, yet they still belong to the wealthiest individuals in Indonesia.
Concerning the pursuit of outstanding debt, it primarily applies to entities with unlimited liability, such as UD (Usaha Dagang), sole traders, and sole proprietorships. In such cases, the recourse typically limited to the seizing all your assets and selling them as much as they can, especially if they have declared bankruptcy. There is no legal basis for the lender to demand you find additional money, if all of your personal assets is not enough to cover your debt. This is also a common sense that doesn't require a business lawyer. If such actions were legally permissible, it could potentially lead to forcing individuals to commit a serious crime like robbing banks, stealing, robbing, killing family members, etc
The only potential exception is if the lenders employ a debt collector using coercive and intimidating tactics. However, this approach is not legally sanctioned, and lenders hiring such debt collectors might be ending up in trouble.
Last edited:
harryopal1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,150
In Aus it is standard practice for outstanding payments to be passed on to debt collectors. I had a stern notice from a debt collector three days after visiting a medical clinic. In fact I had paid. My rule of thumb is I never make a late payment to a debt collector. I always pay the organization directly. Fortunately I rarely miss outstanding payments but I think if you send the money to the debt collector they can then add on their own extra charges. I have seen the occasional TV news story here of thuggish debt collectors roughing up people. I imagine anything might happen here when talking of debts in the hundreds or thousands of juta.
There is already information about the inaccuracy of this statement in Post##152 in this thread.
The main point not to be confused here is that;
- In the case mentioned in post#142. #146 is a business loan taken by limited liability companies. In Indonesia it is PT (Perseroan Terbatas). Similar business structure exist worldwide. In the UK PLC (Public Limited Company), In the US a Corporation (Corp), or a Limited Liability Company (LLC), in the Netherlands is BV (Besloten Vennootschap), or NV (Naamloze Vennootschap). All these forms of company structures protect the owner from the company's debts and liabilities. Exceptions to this rule are rare, typically arising in cases of suspected fraudulent activities or improper conduct, leading to an extended legal battle.
- This is not a personal loan, mortgage or loan taken by unlimited liability company like UD (Usaha Dagang), Usaha perseroan, a sole trader, or sole proprietorship. With these sort of loans, your personal assets will not be protected. The lender could still legally take your other assets they could find to recover your debt.
But we now get additional confusion information from this link
ITAS TO ITAP CONVERSION
Maybe you can't Photoshop with a red background? Question.
www.expatindo.org
When it comes to personal mortgages, personal loans, credits, depending on the loan/credit agreement, the lenders have the ability to go after your additional personal assets, not solely the collateral associated with the specific loan under discussion. Take a look at posts #148 and #152 for more information. Wasn't this the point I made earlier?
But is it the same when saying:
"Btw if a bank foreclosed on an asset to sell to clear a debt and it's not enough, you still have to find a way to get the rest".
"to find a way to get the rest". Get from where ??
As previously mentioned, if such actions were legally allowed, it might encourage individuals to engage in serious criminal activities such as bank robbery, theft, and even harming family members. Depending on the terms and conditions (TCs), the only recourse might be seizing all the assets owned by the individual. That is all they could legally do.
If an individual has a personal loan and, not to mention, has declared bankruptcy, and the lender or executor has got all of his personal assets try to recover the debt, but it isn't enough is it still possible for the lender to "CLAIM THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE DEBTOR"? Please share a link to authoritative sources supporting this information.
Certainly, the situation will be entirely different if a family member is acting as a guarantor for the loan/credit agreement. If that family member agrees to co-sign it, the lender could still legally pursue the guarantor for the remaining amount of the loan.
This serves as an illustration of someone who criticizes others for using search engines to seek authoritative information, while they themselves may be employing the same method. Even worse if you do not have a basic understanding of the topic being discussed.
Additionally, it's proof that utilizing a search engine without a grasp of the basics of a subject can lead to misinformation. The laws and regulations are accessible to everyone for reference, so why do people require the services of a lawyer? In the case of Expatindo, why is there a need for a subforum like "Business Law, Civil Law, and Legal Documents," when the information sought could easily be found through a simple search?
Last edited:
There is already information about the inaccuracy of this statement in Post##152 in this thread.
The main point not to be confused here is that;
If you or anyone else could find information from authoritative sources say otherwise please share the source.
- In the case mentioned in post#142. #146 is a business loan taken by limited liability companies. In Indonesia it is PT (Perseroan Terbatas). Similar business structure exist worldwide. In the UK PLC (Public Limited Company), In the US a Corporation (Corp), or a Limited Liability Company (LLC), in the Netherlands is BV (Besloten Vennootschap), or NV (Naamloze Vennootschap). All these forms of company structures protect the owner from the company's debts and liabilities. Exceptions to this rule are rare, typically arising in cases of suspected fraudulent activities or improper conduct, leading to an extended legal battle.
- This is not a personal loan, mortgage or loan taken by unlimited liability company like UD (Usaha Dagang), Usaha perseroan, a sole trader, or sole proprietorship. With these sort of loans, your personal assets will not be protected. The lender could still legally take your other assets they could find to recover your debt.
But we now get additional confusion information from this link
ITAS TO ITAP CONVERSION
Maybe you can't Photoshop with a red background? Question.
When it comes to personal mortgages, personal loans, credits, depending on the loan/credit agreement, the lenders have the ability to go after your additional personal assets, not solely the collateral associated with the specific loan under discussion. Take a look at posts #148 and #152 for more information. Wasn't this the point I made earlier?
But is it the same when saying:
"Btw if a bank foreclosed on an asset to sell to clear a debt and it's not enough, you still have to find a way to get the rest".
"to find a way to get the rest". Get from where ??
As previously mentioned, if such actions were legally allowed, it might encourage individuals to engage in serious criminal activities such as bank robbery, theft, and even harming family members. Depending on the terms and conditions (TCs), the only recourse might be seizing all the assets owned by the individual. That is all they could legally do.
If an individual has a personal loan and, not to mention, has declared bankruptcy, and the lender or executor has got all of his personal assets try to recover the debt, but it isn't enough is it still possible for the lender to "CLAIM THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE DEBTOR"? Please share a link to authoritative sources supporting this information.
Certainly, the situation will be entirely different if a family member is acting as a guarantor for the loan/credit agreement. If that family member agrees to co-sign it, the lender could still legally pursue the guarantor for the remaining amount of the loan.
This serves as an illustration of someone who criticizes others for using search engines to seek authoritative information, while they themselves may be employing the same method. Even worse if you do not have a basic understanding of the topic being discussed.
Additionally, it's proof that utilizing a search engine without a grasp of the basics of a subject can lead to misinformation. The laws and regulations are accessible to everyone for reference, so why do people require the services of a lawyer? In the case of Expatindo, why is there a need for a subforum like "Business Law, Civil Law, and Legal Documents," when the information sought could easily be found through a simple search?
Er savings? Jewellery? Art? Other assets?
If you owe me money on a car loan and you default and I take your car and sell it and it's not enough. I'm coming back for your TV and Rolex
Who mentioned robbing a bank? Stop being a tw4t
Instead of nitpicking every single post I write, why not come up with something relevant and useful instead of just copy pasting Wiki and posting political YouTube videos
Come on man, relax!
It appears from your writing that there might be a lack of understanding regarding a fundamental concept.
An asset refers to a resource possessing economic value that an individual or corporation owns or controls, anticipating future benefits. In a corporate context, these are documented in the balance sheet as 'asset' to offset liabilities.
If you said assets, it is not just property, cars, it is already anything including saving, TV, jewellery, Rolex, shares, etc. Even painting, bitcoin are included as asset class. YEs they could seize all of this. That is what I said previously as your personal assets is not protected. If they have seized all of this from you but it is still not enough, they cannot legally ask you to find a way to obtain the rest.
What you said is this, which is misleading.
"Btw if a bank foreclosed on an ASSET to sell to clear a debt and it's not enough, you still have to find a way to get the rest."
Last edited:
How can they seize it all if it's for a car loan?
You act smart but you one dumb fuk
If you take finance for a car and you default and they seize the car and sell it and there is a shortfall, they can get a court order to seize your possessions to sell to cover it
That's why Citibank send in Ambonese debt collectors.
What is it you don't understand? And stop being verbose trying to act smart.
If you owe money and the security guarantee is not enough you can seek to repossess or seize other assets to get the rest of the money.
What happens then is they don't value your 90" LCD flat screen at $5,000
They say it's worth $500 because it's old and 2nd etc and that's it's value.
Aduh
SMH
Atlantis please explain to him!! Use long words he prefers it
You act smart but you one dumb fuk
If you take finance for a car and you default and they seize the car and sell it and there is a shortfall, they can get a court order to seize your possessions to sell to cover it
That's why Citibank send in Ambonese debt collectors.
What is it you don't understand? And stop being verbose trying to act smart.
If you owe money and the security guarantee is not enough you can seek to repossess or seize other assets to get the rest of the money.
What happens then is they don't value your 90" LCD flat screen at $5,000
They say it's worth $500 because it's old and 2nd etc and that's it's value.
Aduh
SMH
Atlantis please explain to him!! Use long words he prefers it
I will refrain from engaging in uncivilized discussions; instead, I prefer to concentrate on the content.
Reread my previous post did I say otherwise ? Also it will depend on the TCs and whether there is a guarantor. And this is only for private loan, credit or unlimited liability companies. not for Limited liability companies which is actually the origin of this conversation. Please find any credible sources say otherwise.
But this is what you said is this, which is misleading.
"Btw if a bank foreclosed on an ASSET to sell to clear a debt and it's not enough, you still have to find a way to get the rest."
Even for personal loan/credit, if they have seized all of your assets but it is still not enough, let alone you have declared bankruptcy, they cannot legally ask you to find a way to get the rest.
This is a very basic stuff. Kindly find authoritative information that opposes this viewpoint.
Last edited:
https://england.shelter.org.uk/hous...on/what_happens_when_a_lender_sells_your_home
If the sale does not cover your debt
You will still owe money to your lender or mortgage indemnity insurer unless they agree to write off the debt.This is called a mortgage shortfall. There are various options for dealing with this debt.
Last updated: 6 December 2023
https://www.natlbankruptcy.com/will-i-owe-money-after-foreclosure-2/
Last updated on October 13, 2021
A common misconception among consumers is that after foreclosure they will not owe their mortgage lender.
Many homeowners who go through foreclosure are surprised to learn that they still owe money on their house, even though they no longer own it!
Most mortgage lenders require borrowers to personally guarantee the amount of the note, leaving the lender with two avenues of collection in the foreclosure scenario. Lenders can take back the real estate, and in many vases, sue the borrower personally if the house doesn’t sell for the full value of the money that was lent.
What is a deficiency judgment?
When a borrower loses their home to foreclosure and still owes their lender money after the sale, the remaining debt is usually referred to as a deficiency. Lenders can sue to recover this amount.For example, if you owe $500,000 on your mortgage and can no longer afford to make payments on the note, your lender will institute foreclosure proceedings against you and will eventually sell your home at a public sale. If the home sells for $400,000 and your state allows lenders to collect deficiency judgments, you will owe your lender $100,000 once they obtain a judgment for the deficiency.
In many cases, this deficiency judgment is a tough pill to swallow for the borrower who just lost their home and yet still owes their lender after foreclosure.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/foreclosure-book/chapter2-4.html
Deficiency Judgments: Will You Still Owe Money After the Foreclosure?
If you lose your home to foreclosure, you might still owe money to your lender in the form of a deficiency judgment.
By Amy Loftsgordon, Attorney (University of Denver Sturm College of Law)Even after you lose your home to foreclosure, you might still owe money to the lender. When foreclosure sale proceeds aren't sufficient to repay the full amount of a mortgage loan, the difference between the sale price and the total debt is called a "deficiency." A short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure might also result in a deficiency.
Many states allow a foreclosing lender to get a personal judgment, called a "deficiency judgment," against a borrower for the deficiency amount. A deficiency judgment allows the lender to collect additional money from the borrower.
https://www.quora.com/If-your-house-is-foreclosed-what-happens-if-its-worth-less-than-what-you-owe
Frank Brown
Realtor at Dream Catcher RealtyAuthor has 550 answers and 55K answer viewsOct 2
In some states you can be pursued for the deficiency this as mentioned rarely happens. Our firm represents many banks and hedge funds we have seen them go after people who deliberately vandalized the property. One former owner once asked the bank for more time to move which they gave him. He used the time instead to damage the house. Bank pursued deficiency. Former owner then filed bankruptcy to try not to pay. Bank then challenged bankruptcy saying it was damage he did on purpose and got bankruptcy thrown out and garnished his wages for years. Bank used him as an example why not to damage house on purpose
https://jdanielsandassociates.com.a...sses the property,chase you for any shortfall.
- If the lender is granted a court order to repossess your home, you will get a ‘Notice to Vacate’ or a Sheriff’s letter. This means a sheriff (or bailiff) will evict you from your home and change the locks. The lender may sell your home to make up for any financial losses and make a claim to sell your other assets.
- Joined
- May 9, 2020
- Messages
- 1,045
I agree with you on this. Once a response has been made, you should only be able to add the orginal, not change it completely. Saw some of that from "official" news sources during COVID. Quote and cite an article only for it to changed by the time someone else reads it. Frustrating and confusing for the readers.
MamangDudul
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2019
- Messages
- 463
I only wanna make sure, could be that iam wrong. BUT didn't this whole debt discussion start with companies with limited liabilities? For example in Germany we have GMBH. Anyway, I don't wanna go into detail and iam not an expert on this and for sure I don't read these whole posts again haha.
To me it seems like one person is talking about debts of a company with limited liabilities and one person talks about debts of private persons.
Maybe I got it wrong though，just throwing it in.
To me it seems like one person is talking about debts of a company with limited liabilities and one person talks about debts of private persons.
Maybe I got it wrong though，just throwing it in.
People have diverse working styles. Some find it more effective to comprehend the message once they see it appear in full, not in an editing mode. They may prefer refining the language to enhance clarity.
You have the flexibility to edit your post within the allotted time.
Also there is nothing to prevent people to quote it while they are reading it if they think there is misleading information.
What is not allowed is:
"Linking outside content
Do not link to outside content (news articles, Youtube videos, blog posts, etc) without your own comment.
Under no circumstances should you copy most or all of the outside articles and post in on the forum. If you need to quote part of an article, you must cite the source."
Now see post #162
Indonesian individuals cannot legaly declare bankruptcy.
Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)
Follow Us
Latest Expat Indo Articles
Latest Tweets by Expat Indo
Latest Activity
New posts Latest threads
-
Latest Posts
-
Every foreign visitor MUST be accompanied by a licensed local tour guide (3 Viewers)
- Latest: pantaiema
-
-
-
-
-
Latest Threads
-
Every foreign visitor MUST be accompanied by a licensed local tour guide (3 Viewers)
- Started by pantaiema
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
[FOR RENT] Minimalist House with Japanese Nuance in Menteng, Central Jakarta- Started by Fonny
- Replies: 0
-
Online Now
No members online now.
