<![CDATA[The distinction between extortion in office and gratification remains a significant doctrinal issue in Indonesian anti-corruption law because both offences may involve public officials receiving economic benefits in connection with their official positions. However, the legal elements, modes of conduct, and evidentiary requirements applicable to each offence are not identical. This study examines the judicial reasoning in the Syahrul Yasin Limpo case to identify the legal boundary between extortion in office and gratification. The research aims to determine how the court interprets the relationship between official authority, coercion or pressure, receipt of benefits, and the intention underlying the defendant's conduct. A normative juridical method is employed using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The study analyses relevant provisions of Indonesian anti-corruption legislation, the judicial decision, and scholarly interpretations concerning bribery, gratification, abuse of authority, and extortion. The findings indicate that the distinction between these offences should not be based solely on the existence of payments or benefits received by a public official. Instead, judicial assessment should examine the mechanism through which the benefit was obtained, the position and authority of the official, the existence of coercive conduct, and the causal relationship between official duties and the benefit. The study argues that a clear doctrinal distinction is essential to prevent overlapping criminal classifications and arbitrary enforcement. This analysis contributes to the development of a more coherent framework for distinguishing corruption offences involving public officials and strengthens legal certainty in Indonesian anti-corruption adjudication.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
