LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF DEPOSITED FUNDS TO PUBLIC NOTARY BEFORE PREPARATION OF SALES AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT A Case Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 508 K/PID/2017
Universitas Warmadewa Denpasar
Universitas Warmadewa Denpasar
Universitas Warmadewa Denpasar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56943/jlte.v3i3.607Depositing funds to the notary before the preparation of the Sales and Purchase Agreement (PPJB) is a common property transaction in Indonesia. It ensures the safety of the funds prior to the final agreement between the buyer and seller. However, there are legal risks associated with the management and use of these funds, especially if there is a dispute or a violation of the agreement. This research analyzes the legal consequences of entrusting funds to a notary by examining the case of Supreme Court Decision Number 508 K/PID/2017. This decision provides important insights into the responsibilities and obligations of notaries in the context of fund entrustment and its legal implications for the parties involved. This research aims to analyze the legal consequences of deposited money to public notary before making a land sale and purchase agreement. This research uses a normative method through legal approach and legal concept analysis. Data was obtained from relevant regulations and legal literature. The results indicated that if a notary receives money before the agreement is made, he/she acts outside his/her authority as a notary and only as a trustee. If there is any misuse of the money, the notary can be charged with embezzlement under Article 372 of the Criminal Code. This dispute can be resolved through legal channels (litigation) or negotiation and mediation (non-litigation). Depositing funds with a notary before the sale and purchase agreement can have serious legal consequences if it does not fulfill the correct procedure, as shown in Supreme Court Decision Number 508 K/PID/2017.
Keywords: Deposit Money Dispute Resolution Legal Consequences
Amiruddin, and Zainal Asikin. Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. Edisi revi. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2018.
Fachria, and Wahyu Prawesthi. “The Ratio Legis Liabilities and Repudiation Rights of Land Deed Officers Based on Criminal Code Perspectives.” Journal Of Law Theory And Law Enforcement 2, no. 1 (February 24, 2023): 22–34. https://journal.jfpublisher.com/index.php/jlte/article/view/261.
Hidayat, Riyan. “Kewenangan Notaris/PPAT Dalam Menerima Penitipan Pembayaran Pajak Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah Dan Bangunan.” Acta Comitas : Jurnal Hukum Kenotariatan 3, no. 3 (2018).
HS, Salim. Hukum Kontrak : Perjanjian, Pinjaman Dan Hibah. Cetakan 1. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2015.
Hutama, Kristian, and Ery Agus Priyono. “Tanggung Jawab Notaris Terhadap Akta Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli Yang Tidak Sesuai Dengan Harga Sebenarnya.” Al-Manhaj, Jurnal Hukum dan Pranata Sosial Islam 5, no. 1 (2023).
Khairunsyah, Erizon, Hasim Purba, Sunarmi, and Rosnidar Sembiring. “Kedudukan Hukum Atas Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli Yang Pembayarannya Dilakukan Secara Bertahap Yang Telah Dibatalkan Oleh Mahkamah Agung (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 1650K/PDT/2015.” Visi Sosial Humaniora (VSH) 2, no. 2 (2021).
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Cet 13. Jakarta: Kencana, 2017.
Melyana. “Penggelapan Terhadap Uang Titipan Oleh Notaris Dalam Pembuatan Perjanjian Kerjasama.” Indonesian Notary 3 (2021).
Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 Tentang Jabatan Notaris, 2014. https://www.kemhan.go.id/ppid/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/11/UU-2-Tahun-2014.pdf.
Novianti, Debriana, and Devany Putri Prasetia. “Penerapan Etika Dan Transparansi Notaris Dalam Akta Otentik.” Nusantara: Jurnal Pendidikan, Seni, Sains dan Sosial Humanioral 1, no. 2 (2023): 1–25.
Paskadwi, Bunga Mentari. “Peran Dan Tanggung Jawab Notaris Terkait Pengenalan Penghadap Serta Akibat Hukum Atas Pembuatan Akta Autentik Oleh Notaris (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan Nomor 366/PID.B/2021/PN.JKT.SEL).” Indonesian Notary 4 (2022).
Pusat, Pemerintah. Peraturan Jabatan Notaris Di Indonesia (1860) (Reglement Op Het Notaris-Ambt in Indonesie). Jakarta, 1860.
———. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 Tentang Jabatan Notaris, 2004.
Putri, Dewi Kurnia, and Amin Purnawan. “Perbedaan Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli Lunas Dengan Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli Tidak Lunas.” Jurnal Akta 4, no. 4 (2017).
Rahardjo, Brenda Kharisma. “Tanggung Jawab Notaris Sebagai Penerima Penitipan Uang Panjar Akibat Pembatalan Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli.” Universitas Jenderal Soedirman Purwokerto, 2022.
Ripah Wardana, R. W. “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Notaris Yang Melakukan Penggelapan Atas Titipan Uang Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah Dan Bangunan (BPHTB).” Universitas Hassanudin Makassar, 2021.
Soerjono Soekanto. Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Penerbit Universitas Indonesia (UI-Press), 2015.
Utami, P. R. “Penggelapan Uang Titipan Pembayaran Pajak Bumi Bangunan Oleh Notaris/PPAT Dalam Perspektif Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Universitas Lambung Mangkurat Banjarmasin, 2022.
