Legal Literacy - A dangerous fallacy has long plagued some law enforcement officials and practitioners in Indonesia. The fallacy reads: because the formulation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption (UU Tipikor) does not explicitly include the element "with intent" or "with purpose", then proving malicious intent ( mens reaor error) is no longer relevant. It is enough that the objective elements are fulfilled—illegally, enriching oneself, and harming state finances—a person can be convicted. This view is not only academically misleading, but also threatens the most fundamental principle in criminal law: no crime without fault. Proof

is an absolute and unavoidable obligation in corruption offenses or error) is no longer relevant. It is enough that the objective elements are fulfilled—illegally, enriching oneself, and harming state finances—a person can be convicted. This view is not only academically misleading, but also threatens the most fundamental principle in criminal law: no crime without fault. Article 2 of the Anti-Corruption Law , even though the text is silent on the matter.The argument is built on three solid pillars:

first , the fundamental doctrine of criminal law regarding fault;second , legislative affirmation through the new National Criminal Code (KUHP); andthird , the logical consequence of separating the realms of criminal, administrative, and civil law.Fundamental Doctrine