This thesis discuss about delict changes that occur as a consequence of the omission of the word phrases in the provisions of Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Act No. 31 of 1999 juncto Act No. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendment to Act No. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts Corruption, because it is declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Corruption is an act for the benefit of themselves, others, or the interests of something the body, resulting in losses to the state or the country's economy. State losses are all the rights and responsibilities which can be valued in money, as well as everything in cash or goods that can be associated with the implementation of the state property rights and obligations. In connection with these two things, the Constitutional Court ruled through Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 that the phrase "may" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Act No. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Act No. 20 of 2001 on the Amendment Act No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication contrary to the 1945 Constitution, so it does not have binding legal force. The Petitioner in appealing for the review of the article built the argument that the two articles have repeatedly caused legal uncertainty and even caused abuse of authority against law enforcement officials because they acted not on clear legal grounds. The decision of the Constitutional Court changed the system of enforcing corruption in a better direction, because the Constitutional Court interpreted that the phrase “may creating losses to the state finance or state economy” in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 must be proven with real state financial losses (actual loss) is not the potential or estimated loss of state finances (potential loss). Through this research, the Author tries to examine how the concept of state financial loss before, after, and the impact that occurs due to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016.