Perlindungan Hukum Notaris dalam Membuat Perjanjian Kredit Fiktif pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi Legal Protection for Notaries in Drafting Fictitious Credit Agreements in Corruption Criminal Cases
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
2985-3008
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/ahkam.v5i3.10879
Viewed: 1 times
Downloaded: 0 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:
Tri Puspa Wangi1*, Rachmadi Usman2 
Copyright :
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Although criminal liability and legal protection for notaries have received attention in various previous studies, studies that specifically discuss the limits of notarial criminal liability in the preparation of credit agreement deeds based on falsified documents in corruption cases, as well as legal protection for notaries regarding the truth of the legal identity of debtors in the banking sector, remain limited. This study aims to analyze the criminal liability of notaries for deeds prepared based on falsified documents submitted by fictitious debtors and to examine forms of legal protection for notaries in the practice of bank credit provision. This study used a qualitative approach with a normative legal research design through a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials were collected through literature study and documentation, and were then analyzed prescriptively using legal interpretation techniques. The results showed that, in principle, notaries are only responsible for the formal truth of the deeds they prepare and are not obliged to guarantee the material truth of documents or statements provided by the parties. Therefore, notaries cannot be held criminally liable in fictitious credit cases that cause state losses as long as there is no evidence of intent (mens rea), active involvement, or benefits obtained from the criminal act. This study also found that legal protection for notaries has been regulated through the mechanism of the Notary Honorary Council, the right of refusal, and the principle of due process of law, but its implementation remains suboptimal, thereby potentially leading to the criminalization of the notarial profession. These findings contribute to the development of studies on notarial law, banking law, and corruption criminal law, while also expanding understanding of the limits of notarial responsibility in bank credit transactions. The conclusion of this study emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the formal responsibility of notaries and the material responsibility of banking institutions and debtors in fictitious credit cases. The implications of this study include theoretical contributions to the development of the concept of legal protection for the notarial profession, as well as practical implications for policymakers, law enforcement officials, banking institutions, and the Notary Honorary Council in strengthening legal certainty and preventing the criminalization of notaries who carry out their duties in accordance with legal provisions.
Downloads
Article Details
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Abdullah, N. (2017). Kedudukan dan Kewenangan Notaris dalam Membuat Akta Otentik. Jurnal Akta, 4(4), 655–664. https://doi.org/10.30659/akta.v4i4.2508
Achmad, R., & Yuningsih, H. (2016). Penerapan Ajaran Penyertaan dalam Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Sriwijaya Law Conference. https://journal.fh.unsri.ac.id/index.php/SLCon/article/view/791
Barkah, Q., Andriyani, M. S., & Sy, M. (2024). Perlindungan hukum. CV. Doki Course and Training.
Bashori, M. S. (2016). Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana bagi Notaris yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Pemalsuan Surat dalam Pembuatan Akta Otentik. Jurnal Supremasi, 6(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.35457/supremasi.v6i2.392
Bediona, K., Herliansyah, M. R. F., Nurjaman, R. H., & Syarifuddin, D. (2024). Analisis Teori Perlindungan Hukum Menurut Philipus M. Hadjon dalam Kaitannya dengan Pemberian Hukuman Kebiri terhadap Pelaku Kejahatan Seksual. Das Sollen: Jurnal Kajian Kontemporer Hukum dan Masyarakat, 2(1). https://journal.forikami.com/index.php/dassollen/article/view/557
Cahyono, H. A. (2022). Akibat Hukum Pelanggaran Prinsip Kehati-Hatian dalam Pemberian Kredit Bank. Jurnal Syntax Admiration, 3(1), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.46799/jsa.v3i1.371
Cohen, M. L. (2015). Metode penelitian hukum (M. Aspar, Ed.). Universitas Sembilan Belas November.
Gozali, D. S. (2020). Ilmu hukum dan penelitian ilmu hukum. UII Press. https://repo-dosen.ulm.ac.id/handle/123456789/32300
Hidayat, R. (2015). Penyertaan dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Telaah terhadap Kelalaian dalam Penyertaan untuk Melakukan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. e-Jurnal Katalogis, 3(12), 1–13. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/152971-ID-penyertaan-dalam-tindak-pidana-korupsi-t.pdf
Iskandar, A. (2008). Penerapan Prinsip 5 C’s dalam Perjanjian Kredit Perbankan sebagai Dasar Prinsip Kehati-hatian. Pranata Hukum, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.36448/pranatahukum.v3i2.54
Khanza, M. (2025). Kewenangan dan Tanggung Jawab Notaris Berkaitan dengan Bukti-Bukti yang Diserahkan Para Pihak untuk Pelaksanaan Surat Perjanjian Bersama: Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Medan Nomor 693/Pdt.G/2021/PN Mdn. Indonesian Notary, 7(3), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.21143/notary.vol7.no3.490
Makarti, D. W. A. (2025). Penerapan Prinsip Kehati-hatian dalam Penerbitan Covernote = Implementation of the Principle of Prudence in Issuing Covernote [Thesis, Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar]. https://repository.unhas.ac.id/id/eprint/53401
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana.
Maslikan, M., Purnomo, D., & Sukarmi, S. (2018). Kewenangan Notaris dalam Pembuatan Akta Otentik Berkaitan dengan Kontrak Kerjasama. Jurnal Akta, 5(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.30659/akta.v5i1.2526
Melina, T., & Ridwan, F. H. (2024). Hak Tanggungan yang Terbit Berdasarkan Keterangan Palsu: Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2962 K/Pdt/2019. Indonesian Notary, 6(2), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.21143/notary.vol6.no1.61
Moeljatno. (2002). Asas-asas hukum pidana (Cet. ke-7). Rineka Cipta.
Putri, R. A., Hamzah, & S, S. A. (2025). Peran Notaris dalam Memenuhi Aspek Kepastian dan Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Pemberian Kredit Perbankan. Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum, 3(6), 9066–9072. https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v3i6.2772
Sulistiani, S. (2017). Kerjasama Notaris-PPAT terhadap Bank di dalam Pembuatan Akta Pemberian Hak Tanggungan. Jurnal Akta, 4(4), 707–714. https://doi.org/10.30659/akta.v4i4.2514
Turnip, R. E. (2026). Konsep Dasar Terkait Due Process of Law. Jurnal Hukum Justice, 3(2), 221–231. https://ejournal.ust.ac.id/index.php/JHJ/article/view/6225
Wahyuni, F. (2017). Dasar-dasar hukum pidana di Indonesia. PT Nusantara Persada Utama. https://repository.unisi.ac.id/225
Warsito, H., & Adriansyah, H. (2022). Prinsip Kehati-Hatian dalam Membuat Akta oleh Notaris. Repertorium: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Kenotariatan, 11(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.28946/rpt.v11i1.1640
Winarso, R. P., & Suryandono, W. (2020). Kekuatan Hukum Cover Note yang Dibuat oleh Notaris Berkaitan dengan Prinsip-Prinsip Pemberian Kredit di PT Bank BNI Cabang Pare-Pare: Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Makassar Nomor 49/PID.SUS.TPK/2018/PT.MKS. Indonesian Notary, 2(1), Article 19. https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/notary/vol2/iss1/19
Wiradiredja, H. S. (2015). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Notaris dalam Pembuatan Akta yang Didasarkan pada Keterangan Palsu Dihubungkan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris jo Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 dan KUHP. Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, 32(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v32i1.90
Wiryanta, I. P. D., Mertha, I. K., & Puryatma, I. M. (2016). Surat Kuasa Membebankan Hak Tanggungan (SKMHT) dalam Perjanjian Kredit Perbankan di Kota Denpasar. Acta Comitas, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.24843/AC.2016.v01.i02.p11