Legal Literacy - The verdict of the Central Jakarta District Court against Thomas Trikasih Lembong, often known as Tom Lembong — which imposed a prison sentence because he was found guilty in the sugar import case, reopens the discussion about the limits of criminalization in public policy. In the verdict read on July 18, 2025, the court sentenced the former Minister of Trade to four years and six months in prison. The judge stated that Lembong did not enjoy personal gain and did not receive a single rupiah from the state losses incurred, but still declared him guilty because he was considered negligent in the import permit policy. This verdict once again reveals a latent problem in the Indonesian legal system: the blurring of the lines between administrative errors and criminal acts of corruption. In various forums, I often hear the same narrative: if an official who does not receive a penny of personal gain can still be imprisoned for allegedly causing state losses, then what exactly distinguishes between administrative errors and corruption crimes? As someone who has long been involved in public law issues, I am not surprised. I have long believed that cases involving procurement of goods and services, or strategic distribution policies such as imports, are always at the intersection of three legal regimes: public law, private law, and criminal law. At that point, the most fatal potential for confusion often occurs.