<![CDATA[Corruption acquittals have become an increasingly significant issue in criminal justice because they raise concerns about the consistency of judicial reasoning, legal certainty, and the effectiveness of anti-corruption law enforcement. Divergent judicial interpretations of the constituent elements of corruption offences have contributed to inconsistent verdicts, creating uncertainty in the application of criminal law and diminishing public confidence in judicial outcomes. This study examines the justice gap reflected in corruption acquittals by reconstructing the legal reasoning underlying acquitting verdicts and evaluating their implications for law enforcement. The research applies a normative legal method through statutory, conceptual, and case approaches to analyze the legal framework governing corruption offences, judicial reasoning, and criminal adjudication. The study finds that inconsistencies in interpreting unlawful conduct, abuse of authority, and evidentiary standards have produced disparities in acquittals that weaken the coherence of anti-corruption law enforcement. The findings further demonstrate that reconstructing judicial reasoning through clearer interpretative standards and more consistent evidentiary assessment can strengthen legal certainty while preserving judicial independence and the guarantees of due process. This study concludes that developing a coherent framework for judicial reasoning is essential to promoting consistent adjudication, reinforcing the credibility of the criminal justice system, and improving the effectiveness of anti-corruption law enforcement without compromising the fundamental rights of defendants.]]>
