Reconstructing Judicial Reasoning in Determining State Financial Loss in Procurement Corruption: A Comparative Study of Indonesia and the United Kingdom

Abstract

This study examines the reconstruction of judicial reasoning in determining state financial loss in procurement-related corruption cases through a comparative analysis of Indonesia and the United Kingdom. The determination of financial loss remains a central yet contested issue in corruption adjudication, particularly in Indonesia, where judicial reasoning is often heavily dependent on audit findings produced by state institutions. Such reliance raises concerns regarding judicial independence, evidentiary validity, and the conflation of procedural irregularities with substantive economic harm. This research employs a normative juridical method combined with a comparative legal approach, analyzing statutory frameworks, judicial decisions, and scholarly literature from both jurisdictions. The findings reveal a fundamental divergence in judicial reasoning models. In Indonesia, courts tend to adopt an audit-driven and formalistic approach, prioritizing institutional authority over independent evidentiary analysis. In contrast, the United Kingdom demonstrates a more flexible and analytical model, distinguishing between actual loss, intended loss, and risk exposure, while emphasizing judicial discretion and comprehensive evaluation of evidence. Based on this comparative analysis, the study proposes a three-layered reconstruction of judicial reasoning consisting of normative clarification, analytical-evidentiary enhancement, and the integration of substantive justice. This framework aims to reposition judicial reasoning as an independent and rational process, capable of addressing the complexities of modern economic crime while maintaining legal certainty. The study contributes to the development of anti-corruption law by offering a structured and context-sensitive model of judicial reasoning that can improve consistency, proportionality, and fairness in corruption adjudication. It also provides policy-relevant recommendations for strengthening judicial capacity and harmonizing institutional roles in determining state financial loss.