Tinjauan Hukum terhadap Notaris yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Penggelapan Atas Penerimaan Uang Pembayaran Pajak Penghasilan (PPh) dan Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah dan Bangunan (BPHTB) (Studi Putusan Nomor 1035/Pid.B/2021/PN.Kis)

Abstract

In doing his job, a Notary is required to be honest according to Article 16, paragraph (1), letter a of Law No 2/2014 on Notarial Position. The Kisaran District Court Verdict No. 1035/Pid.B/2021/PN Kis, which is final and conclusive, finds the Notary as the defendant guilty of embelement. The research problems are as follows: how about the Notary's liability of abusing his authority concerning PPh (Income Tax) money and BPHTB (the Establishment of Tax on Land and Building Rights) fee in the process of transfer title of land certificate, how about the party's legal remedy harmed by the Notary's embezzlement concerning PPh money and BfHTB fee in the process of transfer title of land rights, and how about the judge's legal consideration on the Notary abusing his authority according 1035/Pdt.B/2021/PN. Kis 10 the Kisaran District Court Verdict No.

The research uses juridical normative research method. The data are collected from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The collected data are analyzed qualitatively

The hability of the Notary in abusing his authority concerning PPh money and BPHTB fee he has received as the process of title transfer ofland certificate. In this case, the Notary has violated lus oath of office specified in Article 4 Article 15, and Article 16 paragraph (1), letter a of the Notarial Act so that the sanction of Code of Ethic such as notice, warning, and suspension is imposed upon him. The legal remedy of the harmed party concerning PPh and BPHTB by filing civil complaint for compensation according to Article 1365 of the Civil Code. Analysis of the judge's consideration of notaries who abuse their positions based on the decision of the Kisaran District Court Number 1035/Pid.B/2021/PN. Kis, the judge decided on Article 372 of the Cruntnal Code, because the defendant was less professional as a notary who did not carry out in accordance with his authority, the defendant frankly admitted his actions so that the defendant should have been sanctioned for more than 3 (three) months and 25 (twenty-five) days.