Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

The Validity Of The Additional Obligations Of The Notary Profession Through PP Number 43 Of 2015 Of The Notary As The Reporting Party Prawati, Linda; Aprilianda, Nurini; Harini, Novitasari Dian Phra
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.v5i1.379

Abstract

The Indonesian government has enacted Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering, along with its implementing regulation, Government Regulation Number 43 of 2015 on Reporting Parties in the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering Crimes. This regulation designates Notaries as one of the reporting parties in Suspicious Financial Transactions related to Money Laundering (TFM), obligated to submit reports to the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK). Meanwhile, Article 16 paragraph (1) letter f of the Notary Law states that in carrying out their duties, Notaries must maintain the confidentiality of deed contents. Here, there is a contradiction between legal regulations. This study aims to examine and analyze the validity and legal consequences of the additional professional obligations for Notaries as stipulated in the Notary Law, supplemented by Government Regulation Number 43 of 2015, designating Notaries as reporting parties in TFM related to Money Laundering. The research indicates that the confidentiality duty of Notaries is not absolute; in other words, the obligation to maintain confidentiality in the Notary Law can be set aside by other laws, in this case, the Law on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering through Government Regulation Number 43 of 2015, a directly authorized implementing regulation. The additional obligation as a reporting party cannot be considered a violation of the principle of notary confidentiality but rather a form of protection, with Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 9 of 2017 serving as an implementation of the prudence principle for Notaries in performing their duties. Furthermore, the legal consequences for Notaries, if they breach their duty as keepers of official secrets, may include criminal sanctions based on Article 322 of the Criminal Code and Law Number 43 of 2009 concerning Archives, civil sanctions under Article 1365 of the Civil Code, and administrative sanctions under Article 85 of the Notary Law. Additionally, if a Notary fails to report suspicious financial transactions resulting in criminal activities, the Notary faces the threat of punishment as regulated in Article 5 of the Law on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering, which includes passive involvement in money laundering crimes (Article 55 of the Criminal Code) and active assistance in criminal activities (Article 56 of the Criminal Code).
Legal Protection for Land Grant Beneficiaries Against Revocation Efforts by Donors in Indonesian Religious Courts Hassan, Salman; Budiono, Abdul Rachmad; Harini, Novitasari Dian Phra
Danadyaksa: Post Modern Economy Journal Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025): Post Modern Economy Journal
Publisher : Yayasan Pendidikan Islam Bustanul Ulum Mojokerto

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.69965/danadyaksa.v3i1.152

Abstract

This study aims to examine the legal basis and judicial practice regarding the revocation of land grants (hibah) by the donor and to analyze the legal protection granted to beneficiaries of land grants in the Indonesian legal system. The research employs a normative juridical method supported by a case approach, using primary legal sources such as the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI), the Compilation of Sharia Economic Law (KHES), and the Civil Code (KUHPerdata). Three religious court decisions were analyzed: Decision No. 1175/Pdt.G/2024/PA.Smn, Decision No. 236/Pdt.G/2017/PA.Pal, and Decision No. 601/Pdt.G/2020/PA.Tnk, all of which addressed grant cancellations due to exceeding the legal limit of one-third of the donor's estate. The findings indicate discrepancies in the legal reasoning among judges. Some judges considered only the grant deed invalid while maintaining the legal status of the grant, whereas others invalidated both the grant and the deed, creating legal uncertainty for the beneficiaries. The research concludes that although a land grant is legally binding and irrevocable under normal circumstances, its legitimacy can be questioned and revoked if it violates inheritance rights or exceeds the permitted limit without the heirs' consent. The study emphasizes the need for legal harmonization and more consistent judicial interpretation to ensure legal certainty and justice for grant recipients.