Forgery of Authentic Deeds by Notaries in The Case of The Judgment of The District Court of Sleman No. 196/PID. B/2018/PN.SMN

Authors

  • Rizky Muthiarani Universitas Indonesia
  • Siti Hajati Hosein Universitas Indonesia

Keywords:

notary, responsibility, forgery of letters, authentic deeds

Abstract

As a general officer, a Notary has the authority to make authentic deeds by adhering to the Notary's Rules of Office and Ethics. However, in practice, Notaries still abuse their power in doing original deeds, namely without following the obligations and limitations set in the laws and regulations and even forging letters. This can cause adverse legal consequences for related parties and Third Parties. If this happens, the Notary can be blamed and asked for compensation by parties who feel aggrieved and cause implications in the form of Notary responsibility. This research will focus on discussions related to the authority to make Notarial deeds and the responsibility of Notaries if they are proven to have committed criminal acts of forgery of authentic deeds. This research will also discuss the legal consequences imposed on Notaries by analyzing the Sleman District Court Decision Number 196 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN.Smn. The research method used is a juridical-normative approach, examining the principles and elements of the Notary Position and Ethics Regulations and the Criminal Code. The results of this study show that the validity of a deed made by a Notary without meeting formal requirements or material requirements is null and void and is considered to have never been born. A copy of the deed issued is an act of forgery of letters. The consequences for a Notary who is proven to have committed the show can be in the form of administrative sanctions and can be threatened with criminal sanctions based on the provisions of Article 264 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adami Chazawi, & Ardi Ferdian. (2014). Tindak Pidana Pemalsuan . jakarta : raja grafindo.

alwesius. (2021a). Dasar-Dasar Teknik Pembuatan Akta Notaris, (2nd ed.). depok: Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

alwesius. (2021b). Dasar-Dasar Teknik Pembuatan Akta Notaris, . depok: Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

Annisa Setyaningsih, et. al. ,. (2020). Tanggung Jawab Perdata Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah terhadap Pegawainya yang Melakukan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Mataram Nomor 16/Pid.B/2018/PN.Mtr),” . Jurnal Indonesian Notary , 2(4), 55.

Etheldreda Tikatama Ayutiar, & Widodo Suryandono. (2020). Tanggung Jawab dan Sanksi terhadap Notaris yang Turut Serta Memasukan Keterangan Palsu dalam Akta Jual Beli Saham (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 9/Pid/2019/PT.BTN),” . Jurnal Indonesian Notary , 191–210.

I Wayan Arya Kurniawan. (2018). Tanggung Jawab Notaris atas Akta yang Tidak Dibacakan Dihadapan Para Penghadap. Jurnal Hukum Kenotariatan , 3(3), 497–510.

Iin Purwaningsih. (2016). Pemalsuan Akta Otentik yang Melibatkan Notaris. Jurnal Hukum Dan Kenotariatan , 3, 6–18.

Indonesia. , Undang-Undang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris. , Pub. L. No. 16 ayat (1) huruf a.

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. , Pub. L. No. Pasal 1365.

Kunni Afifah. (2017). Tanggung Jawab dan Perlindungan Hukum bagi Notaris secara Perdata terhadap Akta yang Dibuatnya. Lex Renaissance , 2(1), 150-.

Lamintang, & Franciscus Theojunior Lamintang. (2014). Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana di Indonesia . jakarta: Pradnya Paramita.

Moeljatno. kitab undang-undang hukum perdata. , Pub. L. No. Pasal 263 ayat 1, Pradnya Paramita (1976).

Moeljatno. kitab undang-undang hukum perdata . , Pub. L. No. pasal 264 ayat, Pradnya Paramita (1976).

Putu Adi Purnomo Djingga Wijaya, & A.A. Andi Prajitno. (2018). Tanggung Jawab Notaris terhadap Kesalahan dalam Pembuatan Akta yang Dilakukan oleh Notaris Penggantinya. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis Universitas Narotama Surabaya , 2(2), 36–51.

R. Subekti. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata [Burgerlijk Wetboek], Ps. 1868. . , Pub. L. No. 1868, Pradnya Paramita (2004).

Undang-Undang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris. , Pub. L. No. Pasal 16 ayat (1) huruf m (2014).

Undang-Undang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris huruf d. , Pub. L. No. Pasal 54 ayat (1).

Undang-Undang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris Nomor 2 Tahun 2014, Pasal 1 angka 1. , Pub. L. No. 1 angka 1 (2014).

Undang-Undang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris, Ps. 16 ayat (1) huruf d.

Vivien Pomantow. (2018). Akibat Hukum terhadap Akta Otentik yang Cacat Formil berdasarkan Pasal 1869 KUHPerdata. Lex Privatum , IV(7), 90–98.

Downloads

Published

2022-10-03

How to Cite

Muthiarani, R., & Hosein, S. H. (2022). Forgery of Authentic Deeds by Notaries in The Case of The Judgment of The District Court of Sleman No. 196/PID. B/2018/PN.SMN. LEGAL BRIEF, 11(4), 2103–2111. Retrieved from https://legal.isha.or.id/index.php/legal/article/view/425

Issue

Section

National and International Criminal Law