Asset Forfeiture Bill Could Target Online Gambling, says DPR

Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia - Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) has opened the possibility of including online gambling crimes within the scope of the Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset).

This discourse emerged after the public questioned the absence of online gambling from the list of 13 criminal offences currently targeted for asset forfeiture. Previously, Commission III announced 13 categories of crime subject to the forfeiture mechanism, ranging from human trafficking and banking crimes to narcotics and other serious offences. However, online gambling was not included in that initial list.

Responding to this, Member of Commission III DPR RI, Abdullah, stated that the issue of online gambling remains open for further discussion during the drafting process of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. According to the legislator, known as Gus Abduh, Commission III will examine the urgency and relevance of including online gambling by involving various stakeholders.

“Regarding online gambling crimes, this will certainly be material considered for the targets of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. Commission III will delve into this issue by discussing it with relevant parties,” said Abduh, as quoted from the DPR RI website on Wednesday (2/9/2026).

He emphasised that the final decision on whether online gambling will be included as an object of asset forfeiture will be determined based on the results of ongoing discussions and studies. “If there is an urgency to include it, then it will certainly be included. Essentially, we are currently in the stage of identifying problems by developing and deepening various related issues and topics,” he added.

The push to include online gambling in the Asset Forfeult Bill was actually proposed by Abduh since the beginning of the regulation’s discussion. During a Public Hearing (RDPU) between Commission III and the Advocates for Love of the Motherland (ACTA) last July, Abduh asserted that asset forfeiture instruments should not only focus on corruption but also on other extraordinary crimes, including online gambling.

“Regarding corruption, we strongly agree that this Asset Forfeiture Law must be reviewed and is very important. However, I want to ask how its application would work when linked to online gambling crimes,” Abduh stated during the hearing at the Parliament Complex in Senayan, Jakarta.

He noted that online gambling has evolved into a crime with widespread impacts on society, both economically and socially. Abduh assessed that one of the greatest challenges in handling online gambling cases is the difficulty of identifying the main perpetrators, even though fund flows and transaction evidence are frequently discovered by law enforcement.

“What is even more worrying is that the proceeds from these crimes are often located outside of Indonesia. So, how would the technical aspects of asset forfeiture work in such conditions?” he asked.

He also highlighted that the characteristics of online gambling differ from corruption. While corruption generally occurs during specific events, online gambling activities occur continuously and generate a constant flow of funds. “Corruption usually occurs at certain moments or events, whereas online gambling has no momentum. Online gambling occurs every second, every minute, every day, every week, and every month. In principle, the PKB Faction supports the discussion of this Bill,” he concluded.