<![CDATA[This study examines the boundaries of government officials’ discretion in distinguishing administrative violations from corruption offenses causing state financial losses. The issue arises from the blurred boundary between administrative errors and corruption, particularly when discretion results in state financial losses. This study aims to analyze the parameters used by judges in distinguishing discretion as an administrative violation from corruption offenses and to determine whether discretion exercised in accordance with the general principles of good governance (AUPB) may serve as a ground for justification in corruption offenses. This research employs normative legal research using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. Materials were analyzed through nine court decisions, consisting of six corruption court decisions and three state administrative court decisions. The analysis employed an extraction matrix, discretion classification, AUPB compliance indicators, and four administrative penal law criteria. The findings indicate that judges have not applied uniform parameters in distinguishing administrative violations from corruption offenses and have not referred to Articles 17 to 24 of Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government Administration in examining abuse of authority. This study formulates a six-step examination comprising the legal basis of authority, circumstances under Article 23, purposes under Article 22 paragraph (2), requirements under Article 24, AUPB compliance, and determination of the sanction domain. The study concludes that discretion exercised in accordance with the AUPB may serve as a ground for justification when the act qualifies as discretion and compliance indicators are cumulatively fulfilled. Regulations are required to establish the boundary between administrative and criminal proceedings.]]>
