{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1992757,
        "msgid": "asset-forfeiture-can-deter-corruptors-even-before-state-losses-occur-1789988093",
        "date": "2026-09-21 17:20:00",
        "title": "Asset Forfeiture Can Deter Corruptors Even Before State Losses Occur",
        "author": "",
        "source": "CNBC",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "Former KPK leader Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas has emphasised that the proposed Asset Forfeiture Bill must include provisions to deter corruption by preventing perpetrators from enjoying illicit gains. He argues that the primary goal of asset recovery should be to create a deterrent effect, even in cases like gratification where actual financial loss to the state may not yet be quantifiable.",
        "content": "<p>Former leader of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Erry\nRiyana Hardjapamekas, has asserted that the Asset Forfeiture Bill must\ncontain regulations capable of deterring perpetrators of corruption or\nother fraudulent activities after they engage in such prohibited\npractices.<\/p>\n<p>During a Public Hearing (RDPU) with Commission III of the Indonesian\nHouse of Representatives (DPR RI), he stated that the objective of asset\nforfeiture is not merely to recover state assets by seizing the assets\nof corruptors, but to ensure perpetrators are deterred because they are\nunable to enjoy the proceeds of their corruption.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAsset forfeiture is only one part of the asset recovery process. The\nmost important goal of asset recovery is to make criminals feel deterred\nbecause they cannot enjoy the fruits of their crimes,\u201d Erry said during\nthe Asset Forfeiture Bill hearing on Monday (21\/09\/2024).<\/p>\n<p>The former KPK Chairman for the 2003-2007 period cited the practice\nof gratification as an example, noting that the state may not initially\nrecord any losses before an investigation takes place. However, if a\nparty is suspected of engaging in gratification that ultimately harms\nthe state, the assets or wealth resulting from such gratification must\nbe seized to create a deterrent effect on the perpetrator.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cTaking gratification as an example, it may not yet, or at least has\nnot yet, caused real financial loss to the state. However, the recipient\nof the gratification has clearly obtained a benefit. This benefit is the\nproceeds of crime which must be able to be forfeited to ensure the\nrecipient of the gratification is deterred and cannot enjoy the\nresults,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, the enforcement of corruption and other crimes must be\nsignificantly enhanced, particularly through the provisions contained\nwithin the Asset Forfeiture Bill.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asset-forfeiture-can-deter-corruptors-even-before-state-losses-occur-1789988093",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}