Fifi Ayu Lestari

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR NOTARIES THOSE INVOLVED IN DOCUMENT FORGERY

Introduction

Criminal liability for notaries those involved in document forgery. Analyze criminal liability for notaries involved in document forgery from a criminal law perspective. Examines legal provisions and responsibility for authentic deeds under Indonesian Criminal Code articles.

Abstract

The purpose of writing this journal is to analyze and examine how criminal liability for Notaries involved in document forgery is viewed from a criminal law perspective and how criminal law provisions apply to Notaries involved in document forgery. Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Notary Law states that a Notary is a Public Official who is authorized to make authentic deeds and has other authorities as referred to in this Law or based on other Laws. Notaries obtain attributional authority from the State through the Notary Law, meaning that this authority is inherent in the Notary's Office. In carrying out their duties and positions, Notaries are generally assisted by Notary staff, in this case preparing everything needed to make authentic deeds. One of the documents that must be prepared by Notary staff is a letter. Notary staff only assists in carrying out their work. Responsibility for authentic deeds remains the responsibility of the Notary. If the Notary commits the crime of document forgery which results in defects in the authentic deed, it is possible that the Notary must be held responsible for this. Forgery of letters that occurs can occur due to the falsification of the contents of the letter or the falsification of the authority and the contents of the authority in the letter. Criminal liability for a Notary if proven to have committed the crime of forgery of letters is the crime of participation in the crime of forgery of letters contained in Article 55 Jo. Article 263 paragraph (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code or Article 264 or 266 of the Criminal Code, as well as Article 56 paragraph (1) and (2) Jo. Article 263 paragraph (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code or Article 264 and Article 266 of the Criminal Code, because the Notary is considered negligent in carrying out his duties and position.

Review

The reviewed work addresses a critical issue concerning the criminal liability of Notaries involved in document forgery. Its stated purpose is to analyze this liability from a criminal law perspective and determine the applicability of specific criminal law provisions. Given the Notary's role as a public official entrusted with making authentic deeds—a function critical to legal certainty and societal trust—this research area holds significant practical and theoretical importance. The paper sets out to explore the implications when these entrusted professionals deviate from their duties through acts of forgery. The abstract outlines the hierarchical responsibility within a Notary's office, emphasizing that while staff may assist, the ultimate accountability for authentic deeds rests squarely with the Notary. It posits that a Notary who commits document forgery, leading to defects in authentic deeds, must be held criminally responsible. The nature of forgery discussed includes the falsification of document contents or the falsification of authority and its contents. Crucially, the abstract identifies specific articles of the Criminal Code pertinent to such offenses, namely Article 55 Jo. Article 263 paragraph (1) and (2), Article 264, or Article 266, as well as Article 56 paragraph (1) and (2) Jo. Article 263 paragraph (1) and (2), Article 264, and Article 266 of the Criminal Code. These provisions are invoked on the basis that the Notary is deemed negligent in the execution of their duties and position. This paper offers a clear framework by identifying the potential criminal code articles applicable to Notaries involved in document forgery. However, the abstract introduces an intriguing point by stating that liability arises "because the Notary is considered negligent," while citing articles predominantly related to direct commission or participation in intentional forgery. This juxtaposition between negligence and intentional criminal acts or participation warrants deeper exploration within the full paper to clarify the *mens rea* required for such liability and how negligence might interact with or lead to these specific charges. A thorough analysis in the main body should illuminate judicial interpretations and practical applications of these provisions, offering valuable insights into the complex intersection of professional duty, criminal intent, and accountability for public officials.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.