Asset Forfeiture Bill Targeted for Completion by December 2026, Five Key Issues Under Scrutiny
The discussion regarding the Asset Forfeiture Bill has returned to the spotlight following a commitment from the House of Representatives (DPR) to complete the regulation by December 2026 at the latest.
The Asset Forfeiture Bill is one of the legislative agendas included in the 2026 National Legislative Program (Prolegnas) Priority. The discussion process is ongoing within Commission III of the DPR, involving various parties, including academics and legal practitioners.
Oce Madril, a legal expert from Gadjah Mada University (UGM), believes that procedurally, the Bill has a chance to be passed this year. However, he argues that attention should not merely be focused on the target date for ratification.
Madril stated that the substance of the regulation is equally important to ensure it remains consistent with constitutional principles while meeting public expectations.
One aspect requiring careful consideration relates to the protection of property rights. He explained that the 1945 Constitution, through Article 28G, fundamentally provides protection for property under an individual’s control.
“However, state protection of wealth does not apply to wealth obtained illegally; this is where the importance of the Asset Forfeiture Bill lies, so that the state has a strong legal basis to pursue assets resulting from criminal acts,” said the Executive Director of the Association for the Study of Government Law and Anti-Corruption, in a statement cited on Monday, 31 August 2026.
According to Madril, there are at least five critical issues that require attention during the drafting of the Asset Forfeiture Bill.
Clarifying the definition of assets
The first issue concerns the nomenclature or the title of the regulation. There is ongoing debate over whether the term used should be asset forfeiture, asset recovery, or asset restitution.
However, for Madril, the more fundamental issue lies in the definition of assets that can be subject to forfeiture.
He believes the regulation must provide clear boundaries so that law enforcement officials can only pursue assets related to criminal proceeds. Such clarity is necessary to prevent legally obtained assets from becoming targets of seizure.
Allowing limited forfeiture without a criminal conviction
The second issue relates to the mechanisms of conviction-based and non-conviction-based forfeiture. According to Madril, the primary mechanism for asset forfeiture must remain linked to criminal offences proven through a legal process.