This research examines the proof of state financial loss in the alleged
corruption case of sugar importation resulting from the policy of the Minister of
Trade, Thomas Trikasih Lembong, which was handled by the Attorney General’s
Office of the Republic of Indonesia. The main issue of this study focuses on the
differences in the concept and proof of state losses between state financial law and
anti-corruption criminal law, particularly the distinction between the requirement
of “actual and definite loss” as stipulated in Law Number 1 of 2004 on State
Treasury and the phrase “may cause state financial loss” as regulated in
Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 on the
Eradication of Corruption Crimes. In addition, this research analyzes whether
discretionary authority as regulated in Law Number 30 of 2014 on Government
Administration can serve as a basis for eliminating criminal liability when a
policy results in state losses. This study employs normative legal research using
statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, particularly examining the Decision
of the Central Jakarta District Court Number 34/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst.
The findings indicate that proof of state financial loss in corruption cases does not
solely depend on actual loss but may also include potential loss as long as
violations of legal norms and state financial governance can be proven.
Furthermore, discretionary authority cannot eliminate legal responsibility if it is
exercised in violation of laws, the principles of good governance, and results in
state financial losses.