<![CDATA[The paradigm shift from potential loss to actual loss in determining state financial losses following the Constitutional Court Decision has hindered the realization of substantive justice in the enforcement of corruption law, particularly in cases involving environmental corruption. Nevertheless, in corruption cases related to illegal mining in Bangka Belitung Province, judges of the Corruption Court have adopted a progressive approach by setting aside this paradigm shift to uphold substantive justice. Against this background, this study examines whether environmental damage constitutes state losses that give rise to corruption offenses, how environmental damage caused by illegal mining in Bangka Belitung is calculated, and how courts adjudicate cases involving such environmental damage. The research finds that the shift from potential loss to actual has led to environmental damage no longer being normatively classified as state losses, thereby limiting the application of corruption law to perpetrators of environmental destruction. The study further finds that, prior to this paradigm shift, the Ministry of Environment had issued a ministerial regulation establishing procedures for calculating environmental damage, which serves as the primary legal basis for assessing such losses. Finally, the research demonstrates that, despite the restrictive implications of the actual loss paradigm for environmental corruption cases, judges in the Corruption Court have adopted a form of judicial activism by disregarding it in practice to ensure the realization of substantive justice in cases of environmental damage resulting from illegal mining in Bangka Belitung Province.]]>
