<![CDATA[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis unsur-unsur pasal yang didakwakan jaksa penuntut umum yang telah terbukti serta faktor mendasar terjadinya perbedaan antara tuntutan jaksa penuntut umum dan vonis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 37/Pid.Sus- TPK/2025/PN Mks. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode pendekatan normatif-empiris dengan menggunakan teknik pengumpulan data melalui wawancara, studi kepustakaan dan dokumen, kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa unsur-unsur pasal yang didakwakan jaksa penuntut umum dalam Putusan Nomor 37/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025 telah terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan, terutama unsur “menyalahgunakan kewenangan, kesempatan, atau sarana yang ada padanya karena jabatan atau kedudukan”, yang dilakukan terdakwa dalam pengelolaan dana hibah secara menyimpang dari perencanaan yang telah ditetapkan, serta faktor mendasar terjadinya perbedaan antara tuntutan jaksa penuntut umum dan vonis hakim dipengaruhi oleh perbedaan paradigma pembuktian dan penilaian alat bukti serta pemaknaan unsur tindak pidana, khususnya unsur “memperkaya diri sendiri atau orang lain atau suatu korporasi”, serta prinsip independensi hakim dalam memeriksa dan memutus perkara berdasarkan asas keadilan, kemanfaatan, dan kepastian hukum. Penelitian ini menegaskan pentingnya ketelitian aparat penegak hukum dalam merumuskan dakwaan dan menerapkan pasal yang tepat agar selaras dengan karakter perbuatan dan pembuktian di persidangan, mengingat tindak pidana korupsi merupakan kejahatan luar biasa. This study aims to analyze the elements of the articles charged by the public prosecutor that have been proven, as well as the fundamental factors underlying the disparity between the public prosecutor’s demands and the judges’ verdict in Decision Number 37/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Mks. The research employs a normative–empirical approach, utilizing data collection techniques through interviews, literature review, and document analysis, which are subsequently examined using qualitative analysis. The findings indicate that the elements of the articles charged by the public prosecutor in Decision Number 37/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025 have been proven legally and convincingly, particularly the element of “abuse of authority, opportunity, or facilities available due to position or office,” committed by the defendant through the mismanagement of grant funds that deviated from the predetermined planning. Furthermore, the fundamental factors contributing to the disparity between the public prosecutor’s demands and the judges’ verdict are influenced by differences in paradigms of evidentiary assessment and evaluation of evidence, as well as differing interpretations of the elements of the criminal offense, especially the element of “enriching oneself or another person or a corporation,” in addition to the principle of judicial independence in examining and deciding cases based on the principles of justice, expediency, and legal certainty. This study emphasizes the importance of meticulousness on the part of law enforcement officials in formulating indictments and applying appropriate legal provisions so that they align with the nature of the acts and the evidentiary process in court, considering that corruption is classified as an extraordinary crime.]]>
