The Legal Accountability of Beneficial Owners in Nominee Agreements Related to Land Ownership
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to analyze the validity of nominee agreements in the exercise of land rights under Article 1320 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata) and to analyze the basis for civil liability among the beneficial owner, the nominee, and the notary/PPAT in disputes arising from breach of contract.Methodology: This normative legal study employs a statutory and conceptual approach by analyzing primary legal sources such as the Civil Code, the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA No. 5/1960), the Notary Office Law, as well as relevant secondary legal sources.Results: The findings show that the Nominee Agreement fails the lawful cause requirement under Articles 1320 and 1337 of the Civil Code because it circumvents mandatory land provisions under Articles 9, 21, and 26 of the UUPA, rendering it null and void. Liability for losses may arise from an unlawful act under Article 1365, while the Notary/PPAT bears no liability unless professional duties are violated.Conclusions: A nominee agreement is legally void from the outset because its purpose conflicts with mandatory agrarian provisions. Therefore, claims for losses must be assessed based on the applicable legal basis, particularly unlawful acts under Article 1365 of the Civil Code, rather than solely on contractual obligations arising from the void agreement.Limitations: This study is limited to the Indonesian civil and land law systems regarding the ownership of land rights.Contributions: This study provides conceptual insights for academics, notaries/PPATs, and lawmakers regarding the legal risks of indirect land ownership.