| Abstrakt: |
Article 84 and Article 85 of Law no. 2 of 2014 concerning changes to Law no. 30 of 2004 concerning the Office of a Notary stipulates that a Notary in carrying out his/her duties is proven to have committed an offense, so the notary may be subject to or be subject to sanctions, in the form of civil, administrative and ethical sanctions for the position of a Notary, and these sanctions have been regulated in such a way, both previously in Notary Position Regulations, and now in UUJN and Notary Code of Ethics, and do not stipulate criminal sanctions against Notaries. In its application based on the Supreme Court Decision No. 1014 K/Pid/2013 that the Notary defendant was proven to have committed the crime of forging Authentic Deeds so that he was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 (eight) months. The problem in this study is about legal arrangements related to the forgery of deeds carried out by a notary, then legal responsibility by a notary in forging a deed, and the legal consequences of meeting minutes made not based on facts by a notary on the deed he made. The purpose of this study is to examine theory, concepts, legal principles, and statutory regulations from a normative juridical perspective. Results of the study were analyzed qualitatively. The purpose of this research is to determine the role that a notary plays in the transfer of these assets. Due to the intention or negligence of the notary when making an authentic deed, the notary can be held responsible for the contents of the deed. Furthermore, the forms of accountability that can be imposed on a Notary for the contents of an Authentic Deed that are not governed by the facts include Civil, Criminal, and Administrative/Code of Ethics responsibility. As a result of forgery of letters, the Notary's deed is null and void. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
