Golkar Party MP and member of the House of Representatives Commission\nIII, Soedeson Tandra, has challenged the Indonesia Corruption Watch\n(ICW) to reveal countries that can seize assets without a criminal\nconviction or non-conviction based (NCB) asset forfeiture.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are open to input from ICW. Give it to us. What are the examples\nof countries? He mentioned hundreds, right? No need for hundreds, just\nfive countries that have implemented this law and succeeded,\u201d Soedeson\nsaid when contacted on Friday (10\/4).<\/p>\n
Soedeson stressed that his side is not rejecting the proposal for\nasset seizure through civil lawsuits. He admitted that he is merely\ncautioning that the mechanism for asset forfeiture regulated in the\ndraft Asset Forfeiture Bill must be handled carefully.<\/p>\n
According to Soedeson, the discussion of the draft Asset Forfeiture\nBill in Commission III of the House of Representatives is actually a\nform of support for anti-corruption efforts.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut any anti-corruption measures must not violate the Constitution\nand other laws, right?\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The MP from the Papua electoral district explained that Indonesia has\nso far adhered to a criminal law system based on the person (in\npersona), not the object (in rem). Only through the draft Asset\nForfeiture Bill will the in rem principle be applied.<\/p>\n
\u201cWell, we must be careful because property itself has its own laws,\nright? There are many collisions that occur,\u201d Soedeson said.<\/p>\n
He, for instance, questioned whether the state can seize proceeds of\ncrime that have legally been transferred to another person. Because the\nConstitution also regulates the protection of citizens\u2019 property\nrights.<\/p>\n
\u201cThird parties are also protected by law, right? So the question is,\nshould the state\u2019s interests or citizens\u2019 interests be protected?\u201d he\nstated.<\/p>\n
In a hearing for public input (RDPU) discussing the continuation of\nthe draft Asset Forfeiture Bill in Commission III, Soedeson had\npreviously cautioned that several provisions in the bill could clash\nwith the constitution.<\/p>\n
Referring to Article 6 of the Basic Law on Judicial Power, for\nexample, he said that a person cannot be declared guilty without a valid\ncourt decision.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is an issue that has been on my mind from the start. Because\nasset forfeiture focuses on in rem, on the object. Whereas our character\nis civil law, \u2018whosoever\u2019, in persona,\u201d Soedeson said in his statement\non Thursday (9\/4).<\/p>\n
In response, ICW researcher Yassar Aulia highlighted Soedeson\u2019s view\nthat the draft Asset Forfeiture Bill focuses on in rem (object) without\ncriminal conviction, not in persona (person).<\/p>\n
\u201cIn fact, the in rem approach or non-conviction based forfeiture in\nanti-corruption efforts has been adopted by many countries whose quality\nof human rights guarantees is far better than Indonesia\u2019s,\u201d he\nexplained.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/soedeson-challenges-icw-to-reveal-countries-that-seize-assets-without-criminal-conviction-1775865041", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }