The establishment of an institution is fundamentally aimed at\ncarrying out a specific function. Therefore, the main issue in forming\nan institution is not the presence or absence of an organisation, but\nwhether there is a state function that has not been adequately handled\n(Malian, 2022).<\/p>\n
In the context of discussing the Asset Forfeiture Bill, a proposal\nhas emerged to form a special institution to manage seized assets and\nassets confiscated from criminal proceeds. This idea stems from a\ngenuine need. It is not enough for the state to merely seize or\nconfiscate assets resulting from crime; it must also be able to\nmaintain, manage, value, utilise, and return them to the state, victims,\nor entitled parties.<\/p>\n
The question is, does this function truly not exist at present? When\nmapped out, the management of assets from criminal proceeds is actually\nalready spread across several regulations.<\/p>\n
Firstly, the Attorney General\u2019s Office currently has an Asset\nRecovery Agency based on Attorney General Regulation Number 3 of 2024.\nThis agency not only carries out the functions of tracing, forfeiting,\nand returning assets from criminal proceeds, but also has a unit\nspecifically handling the management of seized assets, confiscated\ngoods, evidence, and execution seized objects.<\/p>\n
Secondly, Article 130 of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the\nCriminal Procedure Code regulates that seized objects can be stored in\nthe State Seized Objects Storage House (Rupbasan).<\/p>\n
Thirdly, in the field of state asset management, the Ministry of\nFinance, through the Directorate General of State Assets (DJKN), has\nextensive institutional experience in managing assets of high economic\nvalue.<\/p>\n
These regulations show that Indonesia\u2019s legal system should already\nrecognise a special institution for the storage and management of seized\nobjects. The asset management function already exists. However, what is\nhappening is that this function is scattered across various institutions\nwith different mandates, legal bases, and scopes.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the main focus of the Asset Forfeiture Bill should not be\nthe establishment of a new institution. Its primary focus should be\nassessing the adequacy of the current regulations and institutions\ncarrying out the functions of tracing, storing, managing, and recovering\nassets from criminal proceeds, which are spread across various\ninstitutions.<\/p>\n
There are three indicators for this. First, the capacity for\ninter-agency coordination. Currently, the asset recovery function is\nscattered, for instance, between the Attorney General\u2019s Office and\nRupbasan. The consequence is that the more institutions involved, the\ngreater the risk of fragmented authority, delays in asset transfer, and\nunclear responsibilities.<\/p>\n
Second, the ability to maintain the economic value of assets. Assets\nfrom crime often depreciate during the legal process. Vehicles become\ndamaged from being stored too long, while land and buildings are\nneglected. Certain assets can even lose their economic value entirely.\nAs a result, the ability to maintain their value until they can be\nutilised or auctioned becomes crucial.<\/p>\n
Third, the ability to build accountability. The greater the value of\nassets managed by the state, the greater the risk of abuse of authority.\nTherefore, mechanisms for supervision, reporting, auditing, and conflict\nof interest control become non-negotiable necessities.<\/p>\n
If these indicators are deemed not to have been adequately met, there\nare at least two policy options. First, strengthening and integrating\nthe existing functions. Second, centralising the function through the\nestablishment of a new, standalone special institution.<\/p>\n
However, both options still raise a number of issues. Among them:\nwhat would be the relationship between this new institution and the\nAttorney General\u2019s Asset Recovery Agency? What would its position be\nrelative to Rupbasan? Would part of the authority for state asset\nmanagement at the Ministry of Finance be transferred?<\/p>\n
The establishment of an asset management institution does not mean\ncreating an entirely new function. Currently, various agencies are\nalready carrying out the functions of tracing, storing, managing, and\nrecovering assets from criminal proceeds. The problem is that these\nfunctions are scattered across several institutions with different\nauthorities.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the discussion of the Asset Forfeiture Bill should not get\ncaught up in a debate about the necessity of a new institution. What is\nmore important is to organise the existing functions so they work in an\nintegrated system. Lawmakers need to clarify the division of tasks\nbetween agencies, strengthen coordination, and build a robust oversight\nmechanism. In this way, the asset recovery process can run more\neffectively without creating overlapping authorities.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/institutionalising-the-asset-management-function-1786017246", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }