<![CDATA[Abstract: The development of information technology has given rise to electronic evidence, which now plays a crucial role in proving criminal cases, particularly corruption. However, the differences in the nature of electronic evidence compared to written evidence pose challenges for judges in assessing its validity and strength. Electronic evidence is regulated in Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions. This study uses an empirical juridical method with data collection through literature studies and interviews with judges at the Medan District Court. The results show that although the Criminal Procedure Code has not explicitly regulated electronic evidence, the existence of the ITE Law, the Corruption Law, and the Constitutional Court Decision No. 20/PUU-XIV/2016 confirms the position of electronic evidence as valid evidence. Electronic evidence has strong evidentiary power, but must undergo strict authentication procedures and be supported by digital forensic expertise. The main obstacles faced are limited infrastructure, differences in legal interpretation, and the vulnerability of evidence to manipulation. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the capacity of law enforcement and harmonize regulations so that electronic evidence can provide legal certainty and justice. Keywords: validity, proof, electronics, corruption. Abstrak: Perkembangan teknologi informasi melahirkan alat bukti elektronik yang kini memegang peranan penting dalam pembuktian perkara pidana, khususnya tindak pidana korupsi. Namun, perbedaan sifat bukti elektronik dengan bukti tertulis menimbulkan tantangan bagi hakim dalam menilai keabsahan dan kekuatannya. Bukti elektronik diatur dalam Undang-undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 Tentang perubahan atas Undang-undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 Tentang Informasi dan Transaksi elektronik adalah Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis empiris dengan pengumpulan data melalui studi kepustakaan dan wawancara dengan hakim di Pengadilan Negeri Medan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun KUHAP belum secara eksplisit mengatur bukti elektronik, keberadaan Undang-Undang ITE, UU Tipikor, serta Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 20/PUU-XIV/2016 menegaskan kedudukan bukti elektronik sebagai alat bukti yang sah. Bukti elektronik memiliki kekuatan pembuktian yang kuat, namun harus melalui prosedur autentikasi yang ketat serta didukung keahlian forensik digital. Hambatan utama yang dihadapi ialah keterbatasan infrastruktur, perbedaan penafsiran yuridis, serta kerentanan bukti terhadap manipulasi. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan peningkatan kapasitas penegak hukum dan harmonisasi regulasi agar bukti elektronik dapat memberikan kepastian hukum dan keadilan. Kata Kunci : keabsahan, pembuktian, elektronik, korupsi.]]>
