Medan, Indonesia — A legal study by Putri Marlina Sari and Nurhilmiyah of the Master of Law Program at Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara examines the role of Indonesia’s Financial Audit Agency (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan or BPK) in proving state financial losses in corruption cases. Published in September 2026, the study highlights an important distinction: although BPK audit results have strong legal standing, they do not automatically determine a defendant’s guilt.
The issue matters because proving state financial losses is a crucial element in certain corruption cases. Investigators and prosecutors need reliable evidence to establish that public funds have actually been lost. However, differences in the use of audit reports from various institutions can create uncertainty during investigations, prosecutions, and court proceedings.
Why BPK Audit Reports Matter
BPK has constitutional authority to audit the management and accountability of state finances. This position gives its reports strong institutional credibility. Nevertheless, the study explains that an audit report is not conclusive evidence that binds judges.
Under Indonesia’s criminal evidence framework, judges must assess audit results alongside other legally admissible evidence. The report may be presented as documentary evidence, while the auditor may also provide expert testimony to explain the methods, calculations, and conclusions.
This distinction means that institutional authority and evidentiary strength are related but separate matters. A report’s value in court also depends on the quality of its methodology, the auditor’s competence, and its consistency with other evidence.
Four Parameters for Assessing Audit Evidence
Using normative legal research, the authors examine legislation, legal concepts, and relevant court decisions to assess the position of state financial loss calculations in corruption proceedings.
The study proposes four parameters for evaluating the evidentiary strength of audit results:
- Legality of authority: Whether the institution or auditor has a valid legal basis to conduct the audit.
- Auditor competence: Whether the auditor has the professional expertise required to perform the examination.
- Reliability of methodology: Whether the calculation follows sound, verifiable audit methods and standards.
- Consistency with other evidence: Whether the findings correspond with other evidence presented during the trial.
According to the authors, these parameters can help legal practitioners and judges assess audit reports more objectively rather than relying solely on the identity of the institution that produced them.
The Importance of Clearer Legal Standards
The study also identifies differences in the interpretation of audit authority and evidentiary value as challenges for legal certainty. Reports may come from BPK, the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), government internal auditors, or independent experts. Their legal status and the circumstances in which their findings are used can become points of debate.
The authors argue that clearer and more harmonized regulations are needed to guide law enforcement officials, auditors, and courts. Consistent standards could help reduce conflicting interpretations while preserving the independence of judges in evaluating evidence.
Ultimately, the research emphasizes that effective corruption proceedings require more than a calculation of financial losses. The calculation must be legally grounded, professionally prepared, methodologically reliable, and supported by the wider body of evidence.
About the Authors
- Putri Marlina Sari -Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara.
- Nurhilmiyah - Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara.
Source
Journal: International Journal of Education and Life Sciences (IJELS)
Volume and Issue: Vol. 4, No. 9, September 2026
Pages: 1633–1644
Journal website: https://journalijels.my.id/index.php/ijels
.jpg)
0 Komentar