Pertanggungjawaban PPAT dalam Proses Jual Beli Tanah yang Berakibat Tindak Pidana Penggelapan (Studi Putusan Nomor 69/Pid/2020/PT. Smr)

Abstract

As public officials authorized to prepare Sale and Purchase Deeds Akta Jual Beli), Land Deed Officials (PPAT) may be subject to criminal liability an error in the deed they issue causes loss to another party. The criminal conviction of Arifin Samuel Chandra in Decision Number 69/Pid/2020/PT Smr., who was found guilty of committing the criminal act of embezzlement during the drafting of a Sale and Purchase Deed, forms the basis of this research, which examines three issues: (1) How the principle of prudence (principle of due care) is applied by PPAT in carrying out their duties, authorities, and obligations in the land sale and purchase process; (2) How criminal liability for embezzlement by PPAT is regulated under Indonesian law; and (3) How the panel of judges applied the law in Decision Number 69/Pid/2020/PT Smr regarding the PPAT's error in the land sale and purchase process that resulted in the criminal act of embezzlement. This study employs a normative legal research method by examining contractual provisions under the Indonesian Civil Code (KUH Perdata), the regulation of embezzlement under the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), and the rules governing deed-making by PPAT as stipulated in the PPAT Office Regulation (Peraturan Jabatan dAT). The data were collected through library research using secondary sources, including statutory regulations related to the research topic as well as relevant books, journals, and articles, which were subsequently analyzed qualitatively. In Decision Number 69/Pid/2020/PT Smr, the judges did not consider the application of the principle of prudence by Arifin Samuel Chandra as PPAT in drafting the deed when assessing the elements of embezzlement under Article 372 of the Criminal Code. The application of Article 372 of the Criminal Code to Arifin Samuel Chandra as PPAT constitutes a misapplication of the law because his error cannot be separated from his duties, authorities, and obligations as a PPAT. The act of embezzlement should have instead referred to Article. 374 of the Criminal Code concerning aggravated embezzlement, which applies to individuals who control property due to their employment, occupation, or the receipt of payment for performing such duties. It is recommended that clear indicators be established regarding the application of the principle of prudence by PPAT and the acts of PPAT that constitute embezzlement, so that these may serve as guidelines in deed-making. Furthermore, judges should deepen their understanding of land law, PPAT professional regulations, and the procedures for land sale and purchase agreements when adjudicating criminal liability of PPAT such as in the case of Arifin Samuel Chandra.