Juridical Parameters for Distinguishing Breach of Contract from Criminal Fraud in Property Sale and Purchase Agreements: Analysis of Indonesian Supreme Court Decisions No. 1650 K/Pdt/2015 and No. 387 K/Pid/2022

Abstract

Disputes arising from property transactions are not always easy to place within either private law or criminal law. The same sequence may involve an agreement, a transfer of money, and a failure to perform. In one case it may amount to breach of contract (wanprestasi); in another, the agreement may have been used to obtain property through deception. This study examines the juridical markers that separate those two situations by reading Supreme Court Decision No. 1650 K/Pdt/2015 alongside Supreme Court Decision No. 387 K/Pid/2022. The research is normative and uses statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The main legal materials are the Indonesian Civil Code, Article 378 of the former Criminal Code as applied in the 2022 case, Article 492 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, Supreme Court Jurisprudence No. 4/Yur/Pid/2018, and the two Supreme Court decisions. The analysis shows that a broken promise, even one causing substantial loss, is not enough to establish fraud. Attention must be given to where the obligation came from, when bad faith appeared, whether deceptive means were used before or when the agreement was formed, and whether that deception caused the victim to transfer property or assume a debt-related position. Decision No. 1650 K/Pdt/2015 concerns an enforceable contractual obligation followed by non-performance. Decision No. 387 K/Pid/2022 shows that a contractual form does not prevent criminal liability when the transaction is supported by deceptive conduct that satisfies the fraud elements. A four-stage analytical test is offered to keep ordinary contractual disputes within civil law while leaving room for criminal liability where the evidence truly supports fraud.