Account Blocking at Request of Authorities Deemed to Lack Clear Legal Basis
Koalisi ResponsiBank Indonesia has highlighted the freezing of a bank account belonging to Supriyono alias Botok, Coordinator of the Pati United Community Alliance (AMPB). The freeze occurred while the group was preparing to convey its aspirations in Jakarta. The account reportedly contained around Rp80.9 million from personal funds and public donations. Bank Mandiri stated that the freeze was carried out at the request of law enforcement officials and in accordance with procedure.
Koalisi ResponsiBank considers this explanation inadequate. The public and customers need clarity regarding the basis of authority, the party that ordered the freeze, the connection between the account and any legal process, and the duration of the freeze.
According to Victoria Fanggidae, Director of The Prakarsa and Coordinator of Koalisi ResponsiBank Indonesia, the issue is not whether a bank can freeze an account at the request of officials. In certain circumstances, she said, the law does permit this.
“The issue is how to ensure that this very broad authority is not used arbitrarily. Saying that the freeze was carried out at the request of officials does not automatically answer questions about the legality, proportionality, and accountability of the action,” she stated in a release received on Tuesday (25/8).
She explained that OJK Regulation Number 5 of 2024 recognises the freezing of accounts based on the authority of law enforcement officials granted by law. The regulation also affirms that the freezing of certain accounts by the OJK is carried out against accounts suspected of being used to receive or hold funds resulting from violations of statutory provisions.
However, Koalisi ResponsiBank stated that the authority to freeze accounts is not without limits. Its exercise must have a clear and accountable legal basis.
“Therefore, Koalisi ResponsiBank questions the basis and procedure used in Supriyono’s case. The statement that Bank Mandiri has followed procedure must be accompanied by clarity regarding the legal procedure in question, as well as the extent to which the bank has ensured that the order it received came from an authorised body and met the applicable legal requirements,” she explained.
Koalisi ResponsiBank emphasised that a bank’s obligation to comply with lawful orders from law enforcement officials does not remove the bank’s responsibility to its customers.
“POJK Number 22 of 2023 concerning Consumer and Public Protection in the Financial Services Sector requires financial services business actors to apply the principles of fair treatment and responsible business conduct, protection of consumer assets, and effective and efficient complaint handling and dispute resolution. Banks are also required to have and operate a consumer complaint handling mechanism,” said Victoria.
In the context of a freeze ordered by authorities, a bank indeed does not have the authority to examine the substance of a criminal case.
However, she said, the bank must still ensure the formal validity of the order it receives and provide information that can be legally conveyed to the customer. This includes information regarding the status of the account, the complaint mechanism, and the steps the customer can take to obtain clarity and restoration of access.
Siti Khoirun Ni’mah, Executive Director of the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID), added that banks cannot fully hide behind the phrase ‘we are only carrying out the request of officials’.
“Banks manage public assets and trust. Therefore, banks must have safeguards to ensure that any restriction on access to customer funds has a clear basis of authority,” said Siti.