[ABSTRAK
Dalam menjalankan tugas dan jabatan Notaris dan/atau Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (PPAT),masih dijumpai beberapa kendala yang pada kondisi tertentu berpeluang memicu terjadinyaperbuatan melawan hukum baik dalam lingkup perdata, administrasi ataupun pidana. Penulisanini membahas mengenai tanggung jawab dan akibat hukum terhadap pelanggaran pelaksanaanjabatan yang dilakukan oleh Notaris dan/atau PPAT terkait penggelapan sertipikat. Metodedalam penulisan ini bersifat yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder, diantaranyaperaturan pemerintah, perundang-undangan dan buku. Dari hasil penulisan ini disimpulkanbahwa 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 dalammemberikan pelayanan jasanya. Terkait dengan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Yogyakarta Nomor26/Pid.B/2014/Pn.Yk Tanggal 17 April 2014, Notaris dan/atau PPAT HJ. Carlina Liestiyanidinyatakan telah melakukan tindak pidana penggelapan sebagaimana tertuang dalam Pasal 372Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Sehubungan dengan hal tersebut, maka tanggung jawabNotaris dan/atau PPAT HJ. Carlina Liestiyani dapat berupa tanggung jawab secara hukum dansecara moral.
ABSTRACT
In carrying out its duties, Notaries and/or Land Deed Officials (PPAT) stillencounters constraints on certain circumstances that are more likely to triggerunlawful act both in the scope of civil, administrative or criminal. This legalwriting discusses responsibilities and legal consequences of violations committedby Notaries and/or Land Deed Officials (PPAT) in relation with land certificateembezzlement. Secondary data was used in this Juridical Normative research suchas government regulations, laws and regulations, and also legal books. Based onthe findings of this legal writing, it can be concluded that a Notary and/or LandDeed Official (PPAT) are public officials that have the power entrusted in them toconduct legal services for the public. Therefore, Notaries and or Land DeedOfficials have to perform their duties with honesty and responsibility in providingits services. In relation with the case of Yogyakarta District Court Ruling Number26/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 embezzlementas stated in Article 372 Code of Criminal Law. In regard with this, Notary and/orLand Deed Official Ms. Hj. Carlina Liestiyani’s responsibilities are legally andmorally., In carrying out its duties, Notaries and/or Land Deed Officials (PPAT) stillencounters constraints on certain circumstances that are more likely to triggerunlawful act both in the scope of civil, administrative or criminal. This legalwriting discusses responsibilities and legal consequences of violations committedby Notaries and/or Land Deed Officials (PPAT) in relation with land certificateembezzlement. Secondary data was used in this Juridical Normative research suchas government regulations, laws and regulations, and also legal books. Based onthe findings of this legal writing, it can be concluded that a Notary and/or LandDeed Official (PPAT) are public officials that have the power entrusted in them toconduct legal services for the public. Therefore, Notaries and or Land DeedOfficials have to perform their duties with honesty and responsibility in providingits services. In relation with the case of Yogyakarta District Court Ruling Number26/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 embezzlementas stated in Article 372 Code of Criminal Law. In regard with this, Notary and/orLand Deed Official Ms. Hj. Carlina Liestiyani’s responsibilities are legally andmorally.] |
T43967-Nareswari Anjani Putri.pdf :: Unduh