Nama NPM

: M. Ikhsan Kamil R : 0906519955

CASE BRIEF of Judicial decision of Supreme court number 185 K/PID/2008 related to judicial court number 109/PID/B/2007/PN KUPANG dated August 15 2007 1. Facts -In Monday, September 6th 1999 in his office at kelurahan Fontein, Kota Kupang Albert Wilson Riwu Kore as appellee has made fake deed start with wife of victim Linda Sumargo order her husband Aming Sutrisno whom in this case also as victim go to the Albert Wilson Riwu Kore whom also known as Public Notary to sign a company deed in shipping business, than victim went with Benyamin Henuk and after met with Albert Wilson Riwu Kore tell him that he want to sign a companyy deed in shipping business, after that the appellee show the draft of the deed and ask to the victim to sign the draft. The victim questioned why some page of that draft blank and he must sign in that blank page, and appellee say that blank page will filled with his accomplice, he say maybe in that time his accomplice too busy to finish tiped that all page of that draft of the deed, then appellee tell the victim to just sign that deed draft also in the blank page then after sign all the draft of the deed also give thump print to that draft. After that victim went to her house and speak with his wife whom ask are the deed has signed, and he answer yes. Than after several days published act of sale number 01/KM/IX/JB/1999 dated september 6th 1999, with content Lind sumargo as a wife of victim sell a shop at the price of Rp. 25.000.000 (twentyfive million rupiahs) and bought by seller Marchess Goantai so that proprietary of shop came to Marchess Goantai, and that selling process not known by victim (Aming Sutrisno), sale of that property of victim without consent of victim effect he loss approximately Rp. 1.000.000.000 (one billion Rupiahs). Because that victim reported Albert Wilson Riwu Kore for made fake deed on behalf of Aming Sutrisno without his consent.

2. Procedural History This case has decide in supreme court after appeal in the high court and decide in court. In the court the prosecutor proosecute the appellee has against the article number 263 paragraph (1) indonesian criminal code about forgery Whoever makes a false or forged something that can cause a right, commitment or a debt relief or designated as an evidence for the action, with the intent to use or have someone else use it as if it is genuine and not fake threatened for forgery with a maximum of six years imprisonment; liable to the same penalties whoever intentionally intentionally using a letter falsely made or forged it, as if genuine and not counterfeit because it cause harm Then by judge the appellee decided not comply that prosecute and free from all prosecution, then the prosecutor proceed to a high court and that judicial decision of high court strenghtened the court judicial decision, and after prosecutor proceed to a supreme court te supreme courts judicial decision decide that even high court decision and court judicial decision keep right. 3. Issue In this case can arise several issue. First, about break of notary code of conduct, in this case Albert Wilson Riwu kore has made an deed on behalf of Aming Sutrisno without his consent, Second He (the notary) cheating the victim with ask to sign the blank page of the deeds draft and filled with the promise which Aming Sitrisno (Victim) as a signer, third are the judicial decision which decided by the judge right ? thats related with the how relation between the Aming Sutrisno as a person who have right for the property which sell with Linda Sumargo who sell that property as we know Linda sumargo and Aming Sutrisno are Husband and Wife, if both of them make a prenuptial agreemen so Linda Sumargo in this case are not reserve the right to sell the property because in this case both of them have their own property and have right to each property which they have, but if there are no prenuptial agreemen so the judicial decision can right because linda sumargo are reserve the right to sell the property and in this case the notary in this case as a appellee cannot blame

4. Holding In the court judge decide that appellee free from all prosecution but must paid for judicial cost, then the prosecutor Appeal to the High Court Level and in this high court that appelle also decide free from all prosecution and high court decision strenghtened the court decision, and the prosecutor Appeal to the Supreme Court and also in the supreme Court that appellee free from all prosecution and court decision considered as a right decision.

5. Reasoning In that judicial decision the judge not give detailed explanation how the appellee decide free of all prosecution, but the judge just give the in that judicial decision, that in the sell and pucchase deed which disputed even Linda Sumargo as a seller, Marchess Guantai as a buyer and Aming Sutrisno as a owner of that property are attend the sing of the sell and purchase deed, because of that facts judge settled that the appellee didt wrong because all of the interested parties are attend.

6. Rule of Law Related with the issue and facts that appear in the court related with responsibility of the notary to chech are the person of interest of that sale and puchase of that property came or even several person came because mandate of the rightful person and the notary must did that assassment to find the truth. Both on notary code of conduct or Law number 30/2004 are not explained regulation about this but in the article number 263 paragraph (1) indonesian criminal code explained whereas someone who makes a false or forged something that can cause a right, commitment or a debt relief or designated as an evidence for the action, with the intent to use or have someone else use it as if it is genuine and not fake threatened for forgery with a maximum of six years imprisonment; liable to the same penalties whoever intentionally intentionally using a letter falsely made or forged it, as if genuine and not counterfeit because it cause harm in that case and based on the fact which came in a trial the notary are blamed with the something are not exactly true in facts all of related parties in the deed are see when the deed signed so the notary cannot blamed for something that he doesnt made (try to falsify deed) so, in this case Aming Sutrisno are know the reason he sign in the blankpage and not like alleged before that the notary try to falsify the approval from victim in fact which appear in trial that not proven. In the Reasoning

from judge are not explain or arise issue about status of the seller of the property (linda Sumargo) and Aming Sutrisno as a victim whom both are in marriage, if they are in marriage relationship then the wealth which collected after the marriage under their control that according to Law number 1/1974 number 36 paragraph (1). So if can proven that property which sell by Linda Sumargo are collected after the marriage Linda Sumargo are also have right to sell the property and the notary cannot blame for what he did even that facts about blank page can proved. Legal basis : Indonesian Criminal Code Law Number 1/1974 Law Number 30/2004 Notary code of conduct