Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Legal Reform Urgency: A Critical Analysis of Notary Officials Convicted More Than Once with Imprisonment Sentences Below Five Years Furqani, Alvie Naufal; Istiqomah, Milda; Sjafi’i, Imam Rahmat
International Journal of Business, Law, and Education Vol. 5 No. 1 (2024): International Journal of Business, Law, and Education
Publisher : IJBLE Scientific Publications Community Inc.

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56442/ijble.v5i1.339

Abstract

A Notary in Indonesia is a public official appointed by the Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia. Its function is crucial in ensuring certainty, order, and legal protection in the realm of civil law. In carrying out their duties, a notary is obliged to maintain the integrity and dignity of their profession by avoiding violations stipulated in the Notary Office Law and Code of Ethics. Administrative sanctions can be imposed on a notary who violates the rules, such as written warnings, temporary suspension, honorable discharge, and dishonorable discharge. Finally, dishonorable discharge can be applied when a notary faces the threat of imprisonment for five years or more. However, if the threat of imprisonment is less than five years, the notary still has the opportunity to resume their profession after serving the sentence. The issue arises when the Notary Office Law does not provide clear provisions regarding the imposition of penalties if a notary faces a criminal threat of less than five years more than once. This situation creates a legal norm vacuum and ambiguity in the role of the Notary Supervisory Board in determining sanctions against notaries who commit such violations.
Application For Dissolution of Limited Liability Company Submitted By The Attorney In The Public Interest Putri, Ayudita Supriyanto; Sjafi’i, Imam Rahmat
International Journal of Business, Law, and Education Vol. 5 No. 1 (2024): International Journal of Business, Law, and Education
Publisher : IJBLE Scientific Publications Community Inc.

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56442/ijble.v5i1.570

Abstract

This study is motivated by the absence of limitations on the meaning of the phrase public interest in Article 146 paragraph (1) letter a of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies. Therefore, it leads to a blurring of norms. Furthermore, the objectives of this study are (1) to understand and analyze the authority of the Prosecutor's Office in submitting a request for dissolution of a Limited Liability Company to the District Court; and (2) to understand and analyze the limitations of the meaning of the phrase public interest as intended in Article 146 paragraph (1) letter a of Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies based on Balikpapan District Court Decision Number 457/Pdt.P/2019/PN Bpp. This study was normative juridical research by using a statutory approach and a case approach. Legal materials were analyzed by using prescriptive analysis methods. The study shows that the authority of the Prosecutor's Office to dissolve a company is regulated in Article 146 paragraph (1) letter a UUPT where the Prosecutor's Office is given the authority in order to dissolve a company which is deemed to violate the public interest. However, the criteria for violations of the public interest are not explained. Therefore, there is no clear definition of the meaning of this public interest phrase. In addition, the provisions and meaning of public interest are now very flexible in accordance with relevant regulations. Keywords: Prosecutor’s Application, Limited Liability Company, Public Interest