Criminal law expert from Airlangga University (Unair), Maradona,\nemphasised that the application of the reverse burden of proof mechanism\nin the Asset Seizure Bill must not be done arbitrarily. He asserted that\ninvestigators remain obligated to present strong initial evidence before\nthe burden of proof is shifted to the asset owner.<\/p>\n
According to Maradona, although the right to property is not absolute\nand is only protected if acquired lawfully, the state must still provide\nguarantees to prevent abuse of authority by law enforcement\nofficials.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reverse burden of proof must begin with the initial burden of\nproof or prima facie evidence that remains with law enforcement. At the\noutset, investigators must be able to demonstrate and bring solid\nevidence before the judge,\u201d said Maradona during a Public Hearing at\nCommission III of the House of Representatives (DPR RI) on Monday\n(30\/3\/2026).<\/p>\n
Maradona explained that this process is part of due process of law.\nThe judge plays a central role in assessing whether the initial evidence\nsubmitted by investigators is strong enough to indicate that the asset\noriginates from criminal activity.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe judge will assess the initial evidence, whether it is strong\nenough to state that this is an asset from criminal proceeds. Only then,\nwhen the judge states yes, does the reverse burden of proof mechanism\nemerge, where the asset owner must prove the origin of their wealth,\u201d he\nclarified.<\/p>\n
Regarding the non-conviction based (NCB) asset seizure scheme without\ncriminal prosecution, Maradona opined that this method should ideally be\npositioned as a complement when conventional mechanisms cannot be\nimplemented.<\/p>\n
He provided notes that there must be strict reasons for when law\nenforcement can enter the realm of asset seizure. For example, he said,\nwhen the personal legal process is hindered for certain reasons.<\/p>\n
\u201cNCB is actually a complement when there are weaknesses in the\nconventional side. However, since this is the criminal realm, proof in\npersonam remains the main thing. Entering non-conviction must be a\nrational choice with strict conditions,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, Maradona reminded the importance of tight control\nthrough the judicial system. He emphasised that there must not be\nunilateral monopoly by law enforcement in determining the fate of an\nasset. All decisions must go through court assessment to ensure\ntransparency.<\/p>\n
\u201cEverything must be assessed by the court, not just from one\ndirection of law enforcement. In addition, institutional separation must\nbe ensured, including in the management of seized asset proceeds,\u201d he\nconcluded.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/expert-reverse-burden-of-proof-mechanism-in-asset-seizure-bill-must-have-strong-initial-evidence-1774882348", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }