Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas mengenai sejauh mana tanggung jawab notaris/PPAT terhadap dokumen yang telah diterimanya, Penelitian untuk tesis ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kualitatif. Dilatarbelakangi bahwa banyak notaris/PPAT yang tersangkut didalam kasus pidana, yaitu pemalsuan dokumen yang diterimanya, yang biasanya dapat berupa sertipikat hak atas tanah. Dimana pada saat dilakukan pengecekan ke Kantor Pertanahan setempat ternyata diberi cap bahwa sertipikat tersebut tidak pernah dikeluarkan oleh kantor pertanahan, tetapi didalam tanda terima yang diberikan kepada klien ternyata dibubuhkan kata-kata asli. Hal tersebut yang biasa ditulis oleh pegawai notaris/PPAT dimaksudkan untuk memberitahukan bahwa apa yang telah diterimanya bukan merupakan fotokopi. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, Notaris/PPAT tidak bertanggung jawab terhadap keaslian terhadap dokumen yang diterimanya, karena tugas seorang notaris adalah menkonstantir apa yang diinginkan oleh kliennya, ditambah lagi bukan kewenangan seorang notaris/PPAT untuk menentukan keaslian dokumen yang diterimanya. ......This thesis will discuss to what extent the responsibility of Notary/Land Deed Official (PPAT) on the authenticity of the received documents. The research for this thesis used a normative juridical method with qualitative approach. The background of the research is that there are many Notaries/PPAT committed in criminal cases such as the falsification of the received documents, in which the documents are usually in the form of land certificate. At the time of verifying the certificate to the Land Administration Office, it is marked as a never-issued document by the Office. However, there is a word "Authentic" written on the receipt which is later given to the client. It is aimed to inform that the certificate is not a copy. Based on the results of the research, Notary/PPAT is not responsible to the authenticity of the received documents since a notary is a person who confirms what is needed by his/her client, in addition, it is not the authority of a notary/PPAT to determine the authenticity of the received documents.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Tesis ini membahas mengenai sejauh mana kewenangan dan tanggung jawab notaris/PPAT terhadap akta-akta yang terkait dengan Tax Amnesty berdasarkan Undang-Undang Tax Amnesty, Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang, Penelitian untuk tesis ini mengguanakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kualitatif. Dilatarbelakangi program pemerintah yang bernama Tax Amnesty, dimana Notaris/PPAT menjadi salah satu pihak yang ikut andil untuk dapat mensukseskan program tersebut. Akan tetapi, keterlibatan Notaris/PPAT itu telah menimbulkan pro dan kontra dikalangan Notaris/PPAT, mengingat Notaris/PPAT harus melaporkan data kliennya kepada pihak berwajib apabila mengetahui bahwa Assets yang diperoleh kliennya tersebut ternyata dari hasil kejahatan seperti korupsi dan pencucian uang. Disinilah menjadi dilemma bagi Notaris/PPAT apakah Notaris/PPAT dibenarkan secara hukum untuk melaporkan Transaksi yang mencurigakan kepada Instansi yang berwenang ataukah tidak dibenarkannya Notaris/PPAT untuk melaporkan Data Kliennya mengingat ketentuan dari Pasal 16 ayat 1 huruf e tentang Jabatan Notaris.

---

ABSTRACT
This thesis discusses how far the authority and responsibility of notary PPAT on deeds related to Tax Amnesty based on Tax Amnesty Act, Money Laundering Act, The research for this thesis uses normative juridical research method with qualitative approach. Backed by a government program called Tax Amnesty, where Notary PPAT became one of the parties who took part to be able to succeed the program. However, the involvement of Notary PPAT has caused pros and cons among Notary PPAT, since Notary PPAT must report its client 39 s data to the authorities if they know that the Assets obtained from his clients are from crime such as corruption and money laundering. Here is a dilemma for Notary PPAT whether Notary PPAT is legally justified to report Suspicious Transaction to authorized institution or not to notary Notary PPAT to report Client Data considering provision of Article 16 paragraph 1 letter e concerning Notary Position.

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Dalam menjalankan tugas dan jabatan Notaris dan/atau Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (PPAT), masih dijumpai beberapa kendala yang pada kondisi tertentu berpeluang memicu terjadinya perbuatan melawan hukum baik dalam lingkup perdata, administrasi ataupun pidana. Penulisan ini membahas mengenai tanggung jawab dan akibat hukum terhadap pelanggaran pelaksanaan jabatan yang dilakukan oleh Notaris dan/atau PPAT terkait penggelapan sertipikat. Metode dalam penulisan ini bersifat yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder, diantaranya peraturan pemerintah, perundang-undangan dan buku. Dari hasil penulisan ini disimpulkan bahwa jasa yang diberikan oleh Notaris dan/atau PPAT terikat dengan persoalan kepercayaan, oleh karena itu Notaris dan/atau PPAT harus bertindak jujur dan bertanggung jawab dalam memberikan pelayanan jasanya. Terkait dengan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Yogyakarta Nomor 26/Pid.B/2014/Pn.Yk Tanggal 17 April 2014, Notaris dan/atau PPAT HJ. Carlina Liestiyani dinyatakan telah melakukan tindak pidana penggelapan sebagaimana tertuang dalam Pasal 372 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Sehubungan dengan hal tersebut, maka tanggung jawab Notaris dan/atau PPAT HJ. Carlina Liestiyani dapat berupa tanggung jawab secara hukum dan secara moral.

---

ABSTRACT
In carrying out its duties, Notaries and/or Land Deed Officials (PPAT) still encounters constraints on certain circumstances that are more likely to trigger unlawful act both in the scope of civil, administrative or criminal. This legal writing discusses responsibilities and legal consequences of violations committed by Notaries and/or Land Deed Officials (PPAT) in relation with land certificate embezzlement. Secondary data was used in this Juridical Normative research such as government regulations, laws and regulations, and also legal books. Based on the findings of this legal writing, it can be concluded that a Notary and/or Land Deed Official (PPAT) are public officials that have the power entrusted in them to conduct legal services for the public. Therefore, Notaries and or Land Deed Officials have to perform their duties with honesty and responsibility in providing its services. In relation with the case of Yogyakarta District Court Ruling Number 26/Pid.B/2014/Pn.Yk dated April 17, 2014, Notary and/or Land Deed Official Ms. Hj. Carlina Liestiyani was alleged to have committed the crime of embezzlement as stated in Article 372 Code of Criminal Law. In regard with this, Notary and/or Land Deed Official Ms. Hj. Carlina Liestiyani’s responsibilities are legally and morally., In carrying out its duties, Notaries and/or Land Deed Officials (PPAT) still encounters constraints on certain circumstances that are more likely to trigger unlawful act both in the scope of civil, administrative or criminal. This legal writing discusses responsibilities and legal consequences of violations committed by Notaries and/or Land Deed Officials (PPAT) in relation with land certificate embezzlement. Secondary data was used in this Juridical Normative research such as government regulations, laws and regulations, and also legal books. Based on the findings of this legal writing, it can be concluded that a Notary and/or Land Deed Official (PPAT) are public officials that have the power entrusted in them to conduct legal services for the public. Therefore, Notaries and or Land Deed Officials have to perform their duties with honesty and responsibility in providing its services. In relation with the case of Yogyakarta District Court Ruling Number 26/Pid.B/2014/Pn.Yk dated April 17, 2014, Notary and/or Land Deed Official Ms. Hj. Carlina Liestiyani was alleged to have committed the crime of embezzlement as stated in Article 372 Code of Criminal Law. In regard with this, Notary and/or Land Deed Official Ms. Hj. Carlina Liestiyani’s responsibilities are legally and morally.]

Abstrak :
Tesis ini membahas tentang pengalihan pekerjaan dalam kewenangan Notaris/PPAT tanpa sepengetahuan klien yang telah membayar lunas hingga menyebabkan kerugian. Pengalihan pekerjaan antar Notaris/PPAT dapat berakibat sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum. Permasalahan yang dibahas dalam tesis ini adalah perkara dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta Nomor 366/PDT/2018/PT.DKI mengenai pengalihan pekerjaan dalam rangka pembuatan akta otentik sebagai perbuatan melawan hukum dan tanggung jawab Notaris/PPAT atas pengalihan kewajibannya yang menimbulkan kerugian terhadap klien. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan tipe penelitian deskriptif analitis dan dianalisa dengan metode kualitatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa, pengalihan pekerjaan Notaris/PPAT tanpa sepengetahuan klien yang menimbulkan kerugian merupakan perbuatan melawan hukum. Kemudian tanggung jawab Notaris/PPAT terhadap hal tersebut meliputi tanggung jawab secara perdata, pidana, dan administratif. ......This thesis examines the transfer of work within the authority of the Notary/PPAT, which includes the authority and responsibilities of the Notary/PPAT, acts against the law, as well as the transfer of work without the knowledge of the client. The notary is obliged to act honestly, thoroughly,independently, impartially, and safeguard the interests of the parties involved in legal.. But in reality, there are still many found in practice, notary cases that violate these obligations. The problem discussed in this thesis is the case in DKI Jakarta High Court Decision Number 366/PDT/2018/PT.DKI regarding how the transfer of work in the context of making authentic deeds as an act against the law and how is the responsibility of the Notary / PPAT for the transfer of obligations that cause losses towards clients. This study uses a normative juridical method. The results of this study indicate that, the transfer of work of a Notary/PPAT without the knowledge of the client causing losses is against the law. Then the responsibility of the Notary/PPAT on this matter covers civil, criminal and administrative responsibilities.