LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN PARTICIPATION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION OF AUTHENTIC DEEDS PERFORMED BY NOTARY AND NOTARY STAFF (DECISION STUDY SUPREME COURT NUMBER 134 K/ PID /2020 AND DECISION SUPREME COURT NUMBER 41 PK/ PID /2021)

In Gianyar Bali, one staff Notary and Notary must deal with law criminals Because suspects do follow Criminal Counterfeiting. Defendant I Putu Adi Mahendra Putra SH MKn is staff from Notary Hartono SH MKn who works on orders, and instructions Notary Hartono as superior direct. Study This study is about the legal construction of inclusion criminal liability following criminal forgery authentic deeds are done by a notary and notary staff and analysis of the judges legal considerations in drop Decision free on the Judgment Supreme Court Number 41 PK/ Pid /2021. Research results point out that, the legal construction of inclusion criminal responsibility follows criminal forgery authentic deed done by a notary and notary staff is determined by the presence of errors. There are two entries done by a notary and notary staff, namely ordering do deeds ( doenplegen ) and those who participated do (Medeplegen). An analysis of the judges legal considerations of the notarys criminal responsibility in the decision Supreme Court Number 41 PK/ Pid /2021 which gives verdict free is Because Meaning from the material actions of the defendant Hartono did not meet the essential elements of the crime. Based on the results conclusion, then in a matter, This writer gives advice as well as staff Notary Public submit Reconsideration, besides the judge should be more observant in considering the facts fact judiciary, so No resulted loss for others.