NOTARIAL DEEDS RELATED TO DEFAULTS, FRAUD AND EMBEZZLEMENT

Agung Iriantoro
{"title":"NOTARIAL DEEDS RELATED TO DEFAULTS, FRAUD AND EMBEZZLEMENT","authors":"Agung Iriantoro","doi":"10.22225/jn.7.2.2022.84-88","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study is to find out the crime of fraud (Article 378 of the Criminal Code) and the criminal act of embezzlement (Article 372 of the Criminal Code) can be charged to one of the parties in the agreement made by the notarial deed is considered to have committed default. This study uses normative juridical methods, which means that this study focuses on favourable laws such as Law No. 2 of 2014 concerning amendments to Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning the Position of Notary, the Civil Code, the Criminal Code, and other laws and regulations. Based on analysis, the results of this study revealed that if one of the parties in the agreement made by his notarial deed is considered to have committed a default, it cannot be charged with the crime of fraud (Article 378 of the Criminal Code) and the criminal act of embezzlement (Article 372 of the Criminal Code) based on Article 11 of Law No. 12 of 2005 concerning ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Some judges' decisions with loose verdicts (slag van all rechttsvervolging), i.e., the act charged is proven, but the act of default does not constitute a criminal offence.","PeriodicalId":190076,"journal":{"name":"NOTARIIL Jurnal Kenotariatan","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NOTARIIL Jurnal Kenotariatan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22225/jn.7.2.2022.84-88","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study is to find out the crime of fraud (Article 378 of the Criminal Code) and the criminal act of embezzlement (Article 372 of the Criminal Code) can be charged to one of the parties in the agreement made by the notarial deed is considered to have committed default. This study uses normative juridical methods, which means that this study focuses on favourable laws such as Law No. 2 of 2014 concerning amendments to Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning the Position of Notary, the Civil Code, the Criminal Code, and other laws and regulations. Based on analysis, the results of this study revealed that if one of the parties in the agreement made by his notarial deed is considered to have committed a default, it cannot be charged with the crime of fraud (Article 378 of the Criminal Code) and the criminal act of embezzlement (Article 372 of the Criminal Code) based on Article 11 of Law No. 12 of 2005 concerning ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Some judges' decisions with loose verdicts (slag van all rechttsvervolging), i.e., the act charged is proven, but the act of default does not constitute a criminal offence.
与违约、欺诈、挪用公款有关的公证契约
本研究的目的是找出诈骗罪(刑法典第378条)和贪污罪(刑法典第372条)可以被指控为一方当事人在协议中作出的公证契据被视为有违约行为。本研究采用规范的司法方法,这意味着本研究侧重于有利的法律,如2014年第2号法关于修改2004年第30号法关于公证员的地位,民法,刑法和其他法律法规。通过分析,本研究的结果表明,如果认定公证书协议的一方有过失,根据2005年《公民权利和政治权利国际公约批准法》第12号法第11条,不能以诈骗罪(《刑法》第378条)和贪污罪(《刑法》第372条)起诉。有些法官的判决是宽松的(渣van all rechttsvervolging),即指控的行为被证实,但违约行为不构成刑事犯罪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信