The following article comes to elucidate some controversies that touched the terminology used in the legislative acts branch of Republic of Moldova, more specific: „the corruption offence material object” on the one side, and „the object of corruption” on the other side. This article presents an exhaustive analysis of the contradictory ideas met in the specialty literature, where it was interesting to find out that „Bribery offence has no material object …”, and, at the same time „Bribery offence has a material object ...” The correlation between the corruption offence material object and the object of corruption has been examined. There are acknowledged some objects predestined for the corruption offence: objects with-drawn from civil circuit; narcotic substances (substances prevented in art. art.2174 PC RM); arms and munitions (pre-vented in art.290 PC RM); different advantages (same patrimonial, and non-patrimonial advantages) etc. At the same time, we make sense about notions like: „goods”, „service”, „privilege”, „value” etc. Finally, to determine that presents, the different symbolic gifts, or exaggerated attention does not involve the passive corruption offence presence. Also, there are advanced important solutions in order to excel the legislative field of Republic of Moldova.