<![CDATA[The determination of state losses in corruption cases involving Persero State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) shows conceptual weaknesses that have a direct impact on legal certainty and the proportionality of punishment. Law enforcement practices exhibit a systemic tendency to equate corporate losses with state losses without operational normative limits, thus expanding the space for overcriminalization of legitimate business decisions. This research aims to analyze these distortions and reconstruct state losses as a precise and measurable element of delicacy. The research uses a normative legal approach based on doctrinal-critical analysis, combined with conceptual approaches and functional comparisons to test the coherence between criminal law, state finance, and corporate law regimes. The findings show that the determination of state losses is still dominated by a formalistic and outcome-oriented approach, without adequate testing of causality, governance, and fiscal verification. This condition blurs the line between business risk and unlawful acts and triggers disparity in judgments. This study proposes a tiered legal reasoning model that requires three cumulative elements, namely normative deviations, measurable actual losses, and accountable causal relationships. The originality of the research lies in the formulation of an integrated analytical framework that operationalizes the validation of state losses normatively and systematically. The contribution of this research strengthens the doctrine of state losses as an element of material crime while providing analytical instruments to improve the consistency of evidence and limit disproportionate criminalization in the enforcement of corruption laws in Persero SOEs.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
