Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Punggawa Law Review LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies
Muhammad Fadel Kadir
Universitas Muslim Indonesia

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
The Proof Paradox in Election Crimes: Why High Evidentiary Thresholds Enable Systematic Electoral Wrongdoing Muhammad Fadel Kadir
Punggawa Law Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Punggawa Law Review
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

This article addressed the evidentiary difficulty of proving corruption in the absence of confession, explicit quid pro quo language, or formal ownership links. It proposed an evidentiary convergence approach that treated proof as the alignment of independent evidentiary tracks rather than reliance on a single decisive item. The analysis developed two substantive domains. First, illicit enrichment and asset disproportion were assessed as probative only when wealth anomalies were verified, temporally aligned with authority-linked opportunities, and reinforced by concealment indicators, while lawful explanations were tested through objective verification. Second, hidden beneficial ownership was examined through functional control markers, including decision control, economic benefit enjoyment, operational footprints, and risk-bearing patterns, allowing control to be proven even when title was displaced to nominees. The study also formulated an operational design using an evidence matrix and evaluative standards to strengthen inference while preserving fair-trial safeguards. The findings indicated that disciplined convergence improved reliability in no-confession cases without normalizing burden shifting or lifestyle-based prejudice.
Criminalising Electoral Evidence: A Comparative Legal Framework for Electoral Integrity and Political Speech Muhammad Fadel Kadir
LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): LEXARA: Journal of Law and Legal Studies
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Existing regulation of election deepfakes had focused on the technology used or the falsity of content, leaving the boundary between electoral deception and political speech insufficiently defined. This study aimed to formulate a narrow basis for criminalising synthetic media used as false evidence in elections without expanding state authority to determine political truth. A normative legal method was applied through statutory, conceptual, and comparative analysis of legislation and judicial decisions from Indonesia, the European Union, South Korea, California, and Washington. The findings showed that deepfake was an unsuitable object of criminalisation because it described a production technique rather than the legal wrong involved. A more precise object was synthetic evidence, namely media created or materially altered to appear as an authentic record of an electoral fact that did not occur or differed materially from reality. The comparison showed that disclosure, temporal limits, fault requirements, and non-criminal remedies performed distinct functions. Criminal liability was justified only when an actor knew that a recording was false, intended it to be accepted as authentic to influence electoral choice or disrupt election administration, falsified a material fact, and created a concrete danger through its distribution. Clearly disclosed synthetic media remained within protected political speech.
Co-Authors