出版社：Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
摘要：State financial loss is one of the elements of the criminal act of corruption in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crime. The formulation of the element of detrimental to state finances in the two articles at the level of evidence still raises various obstacles because it is an obscure norm and is multi-interpretative. The results of the research show that proving that the element of detrimental to state finances in the criminal act of corruption is still understood as a formal crime so that the proof is sufficient by fulfilling the act and there is no need for consequences, whether potential loss of state finances or actual loss, the perpetrator can be convicted. After the Constitutional Court through its decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 stated that the word "can" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 is unconstitutional and has fundamentally changed the qualification of corruption to become a material crime, but in its application there are different views of law enforcement officials in proving that the element is detrimental to state finances, giving rise to legal uncertainty. In the upcoming reform of the criminal law of corruption, a more appropriate model of proof is to use the concept of state financial loss in the sense of the material crime. Through this concept, a new act can be seen as fulfilling the elements of a corruption crime on the condition that there must be an effect that the state loss is real and occurs (actual loss). The concept of proving state financial losses in a material sense ensures fair legal certainty.
其他摘要：Kerugian keuangan negara merupakan salah satu unsur tindak pidana korupsi dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) dan Pasal 3 Undang-Undang No. 31 Tahun 1999 Jo Undang-Undang No. 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Rumusan unsur merugikan keuangan negara pada kedua pasal tersebut dalam tataran pembuktian masih menimbulkan berbagai hambatan karena merupakan norma kabur dan bersifat multi tafsir. Hasil penelitian menunjukan, meskipun Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam putusannya Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016 telah menyatakan kata “dapat” pada kedua pasal tersebut inkonstitusional, telah merubah secara mendasar tindak pidana korupsi menjadi tindak pidana materiel, namun dalam penerapannya terdapat ketidakseragaman pandangan aparat penegak hukum dalam membuktikan unsur tersebut sehingga telah menimbukan ketidakpastian hukum. Model pembuktian yang lebih tepat adalah menggunakan konsep kerugian keuangan negara dalam arti tindak pidana materiel. Melalui konsep ini, suatu perbuatan baru bisa dipandang memenuhi unsur tindak pidana korupsi dengan syarat harus adanya akibat bahwa kerugian negara benarbenar nyata dan terjadi (actual loss). Konsep pembuktian kerugian keuangan negara dalam arti materiel lebih menjamin kepastian hukum yang adil.
