Background

As explained in the previous two articles, offenses in criminal law are classified into formal and material offenses. This classification not only impacts the formulation of different offenses but also impacts the mechanism of proof. The mechanism of proof is highly dependent on the formulation of the offense and the mechanism of proof cannot be generalized to different offenses. The mechanism of proof for material offenses is highly dependent on the aspect of consequence or impact as a further element of a criminal act. If the consequence of an act is not fulfilled or cannot be proven, then the criminal act is considered incomplete or imperfect. Such as in the example of the offense of murder which uses a material offense. If someone shoots another person but the person shot does not die, then the criminal act of murder is considered incomplete. In other words, the act of shooting cannot be categorized as murder as formulated in Article 338 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) Every criminal act has been formulated in such a way that each formulation has its own characteristics of the offense which is divided into these two. However, in its dynamics, the criminal offense can transform or move from one type of offense to another. This is very possible to happen and in reality, this has happened. This transformation occurred in the formulation of corruption offenses regulated in Law Number 31 of 1999 which was last amended by Law Number 20 of 2001.