What is the ruling on notarizing a real estate mortgage contract as an "official notary" for a state loan suspected of being usurious, given that the state concludes a contract to reclaim a larger amount (30,000) than it delivers to the citizen (28,000) under the pretext of services?

This contract is essentially a loan with a benefit, and every loan that draws a benefit is forbidden. The state paid twenty-eight and took thirty, and the attempt to justify this increase as services rendered is a deceptive maneuver to legitimize usury and to call something by a name other than its own. This does not change the religious ruling in the least.