<![CDATA[This article examines the issue of interpreting the element of “financial loss to the state or the national economy” in Article 2(1) of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Offenses. The research question is: to what extent can the lack of utility of goods purchased using the State Budget (APBN) be classified as an act that harms the national economy or state finances in the context of corruption? This study employs a normative legal method using a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a comparative approach. Primary legal materials, consisting of laws and Constitutional Court decisions, were analyzed using grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation methods. The research findings indicate that: (1) the element of state financial loss in Article 2(1) of the Anti-Corruption Law constitutes a formal offense that must still be proven objectively and measurably; (2) the lack of utility of goods procured through the State Budget ( ) does not automatically satisfy the element of state financial loss or harm to the national economy unless there is an unlawful act resulting in a tangible reduction of state assets; (3) the Dutch legal system, which applies an evidence-based approach, provides an alternative framework that can strengthen legal certainty in the interpretation of the element of state loss. The contribution of this article is to offer an analytical comparative perspective to reconstruct the interpretation of state loss more precisely in.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
