Asset Forfeiture Bill Deemed Prone to Misapplication, Needs Strict Boundaries

Professor at Universitas Jenderal Soedirman (Unsoed) Hibnu Nugroho has warned of the potential for misapplication in the implementation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset) if its provisions are not formulated with strict boundaries.

According to Hibnu, the concept of asset forfeiture targeting objects (in rem), not people, could lead to problems if not accompanied by legal certainty regarding the subjects connected to those assets.

“In this bill, ladies and gentlemen, the material needed is how the mechanism for this in rem lawsuit works. This lawsuit regulation, if it’s fully in rem, a lawsuit against the asset—what kind of asset? What about the person first? This needs some strict boundaries,” said Hibnu during his input at the public hearing (RDPU) with Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR RI) on Monday (30/3/2026).

According to Hibnu, without such clarity, the asset forfeiture mechanism could create risks of misapplication, including against parties not involved in criminal acts.

Hibnu gave an example: someone might have assets that appear disproportionate to their job, but they actually come from legitimate sources, such as family inheritance.

“This becomes a problem of suspicion. Where from? Even though it’s from grandparents and so on,” he said.

Therefore, Hibnu emphasised the importance of caution in formulating the rules so that the state does not easily suspect citizens’ asset ownership.

He also highlighted potential issues in the burden of proof on asset owners.

According to him, proof must be conducted in a balanced manner so as not to harm parties who are actually innocent.

“The presumption of innocence must also be clear. Ensuring the rights of the defendant, the rights of the suspect if it’s still like this,” said Hibnu.

Furthermore, Hibnu assessed that the Asset Forfeiture Bill needs to affirm its position as a special rule (lex specialis), especially regarding proof.

This is important to avoid overlaps with existing procedural law provisions.

“This is a criminal object but involves civil matters. So the core is criminal, but related to civil,” he said.