Implications of Nominee Agreement between Foreign Nationals and Indonesian Citizens

Abstract

Control over land in Indonesia is positively regulated for Indonesian citizens and for foreign citizens, but only specifically in the form of usufructuary rights and lease rights, but there are still many foreigners who want to have ownership rights to land which is certainly contrary to positive law in Indonesia secretly, namely by using a nominee agreement or name borrowing agreement. So, this study aims to analyze how the validity of nominee agreements in Indonesia compares with other countries (Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, England) and how to resolve cases of nominee agreements involving notaries with parties involved in Indonesia. The research method used in this research is a normative legal research method. The results of this discussion analysis are first, nominee agreements are completely unknown in the Indonesian legal system, especially in Indonesian contract law, so that it can be said to contain empty meanings/empty norms, because nominee agreements can be categorized as law smuggling. Second, the legal consequences for a Notary involved in making a nominee agreement to smuggle the law, the Notary is required to be held accountable for his actions before the law, namely by being legally annulled and punished to pay for losses made without revocation of the position of Notary. So that the government needs to make a regulation that regulates nominee agreements, especially related to land rights and the Indonesian government follows the steps of the Thai and Philippine governments which specifically prohibit all forms of nominee borrowing practices by adding provisions in the Basic Agrarian Law. There is also a need for more commensurate sanctions for Notaries involved in law smuggling.