This study analyzes the legal qualification and criminal liability in a case involving the misuse of the East Meyambanga Village Budget (APBDes), South Bolaang Mongondow Regency. The analysis focuses on distinguishing the elements of Article 2(1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law, proving state financial loss, and formulating preventive measures derived from weaknesses in case governance. This study employed normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and limited case approaches. The case materials were derived from publicly available information concerning the misuse of the APBDes for the 2018 and 2020 fiscal years, Detention Order No. PRINT-01/P.1.12.8/Fd.1/07/2025, the audit findings of the Inspectorate of South Bolaang Mongondow Regency amounting to Rp373.423.000,00, and trial progress reports. The findings indicate that Article 2(1) and Article 3 have different elemental structures. Article 2 requires proof of an unlawful act and conduct intended to enrich oneself, another person, or a corporation, whereas Article 3 emphasizes abuse of authority inherent in office for the purpose of benefiting oneself, another person, or a corporation. In cases involving village officials, Article 3 is more specific where authority over village financial management constitutes the principal means of committing the act; however, its application remains dependent on proof of actual loss, culpability, and a causal nexus. Prevention should focus on the segregation of functions, risk-based audits, APBDes transparency, strengthening the Village Consultative Body (BPD) and the community, and maintaining digital transaction trails.
