Nominee agreements in general can be regarded as loan-name agreements, but in Indonesia, nominee agreements are sometimes made to smuggle laws, foreigners and Indonesian citizens make cooperation agreements to lend names of Indonesian citizens to foreigners to have ownership rights to land in Indonesia, even though even though Indonesian regulations are welcoming of such practice agrarian law prohibits ownership of land to foreigners. The problem that would arise is the validity of the nominee agreement and how the court decisions relate to the nominee agreement The research made by the author uses a normative juridical method, using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, which focus on the study of literature that has verified the facts. The results obtained from the research on the nominee agreement are regarding the validity of the nominee agreement depend on the contents of the agreement. If it is not contrary to the law, it can be said to be legitimate, and court decisions relating to the normative nominee panel of judges. In the issue of, the act to smuggle the law, in the judge's decision in the court is not in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 of the Basic Agrarian Law, which stated the land should belong to the state, but if it sees from justification of the judge has actually given good justice to the parties. Conclusions obtained from the analysis carried out that the validity of the nominee agreement if viewed from Article 1320 of the Civil Code is generally permitted, but the agreement does not become valid if the agreed content of the parties is contrary to law, decency and public order. As well as the court ruling that was discussed, it could be concluded that the judges normatively were wrong because they did not implement the Law which became the basis of the verdict, but when viewed in a fair manner the judges had provided fair justice.