<![CDATA[Proving abuse of authority in corruption cases requires more than establishing an administrative irregularity or a loss to public finances. This article examines the evidentiary relationship between official authority, its alleged misuse, the purpose of benefiting a person or corporation, and the resulting financial consequences, with Jambi City as the institutional context. Normative legal research employs statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by constitutional jurisprudence, scholarly publications, and official local documentation. The analysis considers the transition from Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law to Article 604 of the Criminal Code and the procedural framework applicable in 2026. It finds that proof must identify the defendant’s authority, the specific departure from its lawful exercise, the required beneficial purpose, and the causal connection with actual loss. Administrative findings and audit reports are relevant but do not independently establish every criminal element. The article develops an evidentiary matrix connecting each proposition with supporting material and alternative explanations. It concludes that element-specific reasoning strengthens corruption enforcement while preventing automatic attribution of guilt from officeholding, procedural defects, or adverse financial outcomes. The findings are doctrinal rather than an empirical evaluation of Jambi court decisions.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
