The Unclear Criminal Object

Oct 13, 2025 by miodeya.com 108 views

Introduction

The case of falsification of letters carried out by VA, a notary employee, in the decision of the Karanganyar District Court No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN. VA was found guilty for making and using fake letters in the form of Covernote No. 7/Notijii/2020 dated March 12, 2020. As a result, VA was sentenced to 1 year 6 months in prison. This study aims to analyze the juridical aspects of the criminal acts of falsification of letters by notary employees, using a normative juridical method with an analytical descriptive approach.

Background

As a notary employee, VA has the responsibility to help carry out office administration, maintain the confidentiality of the deed, and be a witness in reading the deed. However, VA violates the law and is responsible for the criminal offense of falsification of letters based on Article 263 of the Criminal Code, because his actions are detrimental to other parties. The case of falsification of letters carried out by VA caused losses for PT BPR AMS and TA Notary, because VA should help notaries in carrying out their duties, not even falsifying the cover.

Methodology

This study uses a normative juridical method with an analytical descriptive approach, analyzing the law with data that is analyzed qualitatively. The study aims to analyze the juridical aspects of the criminal acts of falsification of letters by notary employees, using the Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg as a case study.

Decision Analysis

Analysis of the Karanganyar District Court Decision in this case shows several weaknesses in its legal considerations.

The Unclear Criminal Object

The decision did not explicitly determine that the criminal offense committed by the VA was the forgery of the Covernote. Making a covenote is not the authority of the notary as stipulated in Article 15 of the UUJN (Notary Position Law), so that the cost of making a cover cannot be categorized as a notary honorarium.

Lack of Consideration of Loss

The decision also did not consider the financial losses experienced by PT BPR AMS due to bad loans caused by counterfeiting of covenote. The verdict only relies on VA's recognition without further investigating the impact of the loss caused.

Importance of Careful Legal Considerations

Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg shows the need for more thorough legal considerations in the case of falsification of letters by notary employees. Judges need to pay attention to several things:

Determination of Criminal Objects

The judge must explicitly determine the criminal object committed by the defendant, in this case, whether the falsification of the letter by the defendant is the counterfeiting of the covenote or other documents.

Loss Considerations

Judges need to consider comprehensively the losses caused by criminal acts of falsification of letters, including financial losses and non-financial losses.

Involvement of Notary Employees

Judges need to consider the responsibility of the notary employee in the criminal offense of letters. Even though the notary employee only helps the notary, he remains responsible for his actions that are detrimental to other parties.

Suggestion

This case is an important lesson for notaries and notary employees to always uphold professional and legal ethics. Notary employees have a big responsibility in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the notary profession. Increasing legal awareness and professional ethics for notary employees can prevent the occurrence of criminal acts of falsification of letters in the future.

Conclusion

The case of falsification of letters carried out by VA, a notary employee, highlights the importance of careful legal considerations in the case of falsification of letters by notary employees. Judges need to pay attention to several things, including the determination of criminal objects, loss considerations, and involvement of notary employees. This study aims to provide a juridical analysis of the criminal acts of falsification of letters by notary employees, using the Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg as a case study.

Resource

Notary Position Law
Criminal Code
Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg

Recommendation

This study recommends that notary employees and notaries should always uphold professional and legal ethics. Notary employees have a big responsibility in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the notary profession. Increasing legal awareness and professional ethics for notary employees can prevent the occurrence of criminal acts of falsification of letters in the future.

Limitation

This study has several limitations, including the use of a single case study and the limited scope of the analysis. Future studies can use multiple case studies and a more comprehensive analysis to provide a more complete understanding of the juridical aspects of the criminal acts of falsification of letters by notary employees.

Future Research

Future research can focus on several areas, including:

The impact of the criminal acts of falsification of letters on the notary profession and the community.
The role of notary employees in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the notary profession.
The importance of increasing legal awareness and professional ethics for notary employees.

By conducting further research in these areas, we can gain a deeper understanding of the juridical aspects of the criminal acts of falsification of letters by notary employees and provide recommendations for improving the notary profession and the community.

Q1: What is the main purpose of this study?

A1: The main purpose of this study is to analyze the juridical aspects of the criminal acts of falsification of letters by notary employees, using the Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg as a case study.

Q2: What are the responsibilities of a notary employee?

A2: As a notary employee, one has the responsibility to help carry out office administration, maintain the confidentiality of the deed, and be a witness in reading the deed.

Q3: What is the significance of the Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg?

A3: The Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg is significant because it highlights the importance of careful legal considerations in the case of falsification of letters by notary employees.

Q4: What are the weaknesses in the legal considerations of the Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg?

A4: The decision did not explicitly determine that the criminal offense committed by the VA was the forgery of the Covernote, and it also did not consider the financial losses experienced by PT BPR AMS due to bad loans caused by counterfeiting of covenote.

Q5: What are the implications of the Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg for notary employees and notaries?

A5: The decision implies that notary employees and notaries should always uphold professional and legal ethics, and that increasing legal awareness and professional ethics for notary employees can prevent the occurrence of criminal acts of falsification of letters in the future.

Q6: What are the limitations of this study?

A6: This study has several limitations, including the use of a single case study and the limited scope of the analysis.

Q7: What are the recommendations for future research?

A7: Future research can focus on several areas, including the impact of the criminal acts of falsification of letters on the notary profession and the community, the role of notary employees in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the notary profession, and the importance of increasing legal awareness and professional ethics for notary employees.

Q8: What are the implications of this study for the notary profession and the community?

A8: This study implies that the notary profession and the community should prioritize the importance of careful legal considerations and professional ethics in the case of falsification of letters by notary employees.

Q9: What are the potential consequences of notary employees engaging in criminal acts of falsification of letters?

A9: The potential consequences of notary employees engaging in criminal acts of falsification of letters include damage to the reputation of the notary profession, financial losses for individuals and organizations, and erosion of trust in the notary profession.

Q10: What are the recommendations for notary employees and notaries to prevent the occurrence of criminal acts of falsification of letters?

A10: Notary employees and notaries should always uphold professional and legal ethics, and increase their legal awareness and professional ethics to prevent the occurrence of criminal acts of falsification of letters.

By answering these frequently asked questions, we hope to provide a better understanding of the juridical analysis of the criminal acts of falsification of letters by notary employees and the implications of the Karanganyar District Court Decision No. 36/PID. B/2021/PN.Krg.