Beyond Corruption: DPR States Asset Forfeiture Bill Also Targets Narcotics and Terrorism

The Chairman of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI), Habiburokhman, stated that the Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture does not only regulate assets derived from corruption, but also covers several other criminal activities.

“Commission III of the DPR RI is committed to ensuring that the Asset Forfeiture Bill becomes a complete, progressive, and proportional legal umbrella to recover state losses while simultaneously restoring public losses comprehensively,” Habiburokhman said in Jakarta on Wednesday.

According to him, various other criminal acts also cause significant losses to the state and society. He noted that asset forfeiture regulations in several other countries are not limited solely to corruption-related offences.

Habiburokhman explained that the United States, through its civil forfeiture regime, regulates the seizure of proceeds from narcotics crimes, money laundering, smuggling, and even capital market securities manipulation.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) and strengthened by Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWO), allows for the forfeiture of assets related to serious crime, tax evasion, and organised fraud without requiring a prior criminal conviction.

Australia also regulates asset forfeiture through its Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which covers organised crime, drug trafficking, customs crimes, and large-scale financial crimes.

According to Habiburocrohman, Commission III has received various inputs to include narcotics, terrorism, investment fraud, environmental crimes, taxation, and the insurance sector within a non-conviction based asset forfeiture regime.

“The spectrum of losses caused by these criminal acts is clearly no less destructive,” he said.

He cited that asset forfeiture in narcotics and terrorism crimes could be used to sever funding flows and seize the logistical assets of drug lords and terrorist networks.

Such a step, according to him, is necessary to hinder the continuity and regeneration of criminal networks.

In cases of investment and insurance fraud, asset forfeiture is also required to recover victims’ losses, as restitution is often hindered because perpetrators disguise or transfer their assets.

Habiburokhman emphasised that the fundamental principle of the Asset Forfeiture Bill is to ensure that criminals are not permitted to enjoy the profits derived from unlawful acts.