Abstract
This study aims to examine and analyze the responsibility of the Notary to the Fictitious General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) which was made not in accordance with the existing legal rules. This research is a normative legal research that is descriptive in nature with a statutory approach and a case approach. The sources of legal materials used are primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The results of this study are based on Decision Number 69/Pid.B/2016/PN.Plk the judge gave his legal considerations by stating that the notary or the defendant had violated Article 266 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) of the 1st Book of the Law. Criminal Law (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) and must be held criminally responsible for his actions because there has never been a meeting between shareholders and a notary. Notaries in carrying out their duties and positions are regulated in Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning Notary Positions, as amended by Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Amendments to Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning Notary Positions which are special provisions or lex specialis. In this case, the notary's actions are categorized as having fulfilled the criminal elements in the Criminal Code which are general provisions or lex generali. Therefore, every notary cannot be separated from sanctions if he violates the applicable laws and regulations.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.