Responsibility of Notaries Who Participate in Criminal Acts

Abstract

This study aims to analyze: 1) The responsibility of a notary who participated in committing a crime, namely Notary G, must be criminally responsible in the Pangkal Pinang District Court Decision No. 21/Pid.Sus-TPK/2021/PN.Pgp because the covernote he made was considered incorrect and contradicted Article 16 paragraph (1) UUJN and was considered to have abused authority as per Article 3 of the Corruption Law. The covernote does not have perfect legal force like an authentic deed as per Article 1868 and the covernote does not meet the requirements of an authentic deed as per Article 38 UUJN. Basically, a covernote is only an agreement that arises due to an agreement or agreement. The agreement is included in the unilateral statement as per Article 1237 of the Civil Code because its performance is unilateral, namely only in the Notary. There are no legal regulations regarding the covernote and because the covernote is a unilateral statement made by the Notary. 2) The legal implications of a deed issued by a notary who is involved in committing a crime are that in this case it does not affect the deed he made, the credit agreement deed remains valid and is not void. In this case, the Notary is charged with a criminal act of corruption because the covernote he made is considered to have incorrect contents. The legal consequences of a fake covernote issued by a Notary are that if the covernote turns out to be fake, the covernote becomes invalid, but does not affect the validity of the Credit Agreement Deed. The Covernote and the Credit Agreement Deed are not one entity, while what affects the validity of the Credit Agreement Deed is the fulfillment of the requirements for an Authentic Deed in the Notary Law.