Tanpa Kontrak, Tetap Korupsi? Menimbang Ulang Batas Doktrin dan Pembuktian Hukum

Abstrak

The prosecution of corruption in Indonesia remains heavily reliant on formalistic approaches, with an emphasis on written contracts and official documents as primary evidence. However, contemporary corruption frequently occurs through informal relationships, covert exchanges, and abuse of office without administrative traces. This study aims to explore the doctrinal and normative limits of prosecuting corruption in the absence of a formal agreement, and to propose a refined evidentiary framework responsive to latent forms of corruption. Utilizing a normative legal method and comparative analysis, this article examines the structural deficiencies of Indonesia’s legal framework and contrasts it with systems in jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The findings reveal that the current Indonesian legal system lacks sufficient mechanisms to consistently criminalize non-contractual corrupt conduct. As a solution, the study advocates for doctrinal reform, expansion of the legal definition of “unlawful acts,” formal recognition of indirect evidence, and the adoption of illicit enrichment norms under strict safeguards. These reforms aim not only to improve prosecutorial effectiveness but also to construct a context-sensitive model of anti-corruption law aligned with the complex dynamics of modern power relations.