Cambridge Scholar Proposes Asset Forfeiture Without Individual Conviction

A postgraduate student from the University of Cambridge, Ahmad Noviandri Adji, has proposed that asset forfeiture efforts should proceed without a criminal conviction under the Asset Forfeiture Bill. A criminal verdict, or conviction-based forfeiture, has previously been a point of contention in the bill’s asset forfeiture efforts. This is necessary to avoid potential arbitrary implementation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. However, during a continuation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill hearing at House of Representatives Commission III on Monday (20/7), Novindri assessed that conviction-based forfeiture creates a dead end for the bill’s enactment. "Our current system is heavily reliant on conviction-based forfeiture, where asset forfeiture can only be carried out after the perpetrator has been found guilty. This approach reaches a dead end in four circumstances," said Novindri, who attended online. According to him, conviction-based forfeiture in the Asset Forfeiture Bill faces four problems. These are when the perpetrator dies, when the perpetrator flees or cannot be tried, when assets are concealed through another party or converted, and when assets are transferred. Novindri said the Asset Forfeiture Bill should be present to close these four loopholes. He referred to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), a legally binding international convention in the global fight against corruption, specifically Article 54 paragraph 1 letter C, which requests states to consider asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction, especially when the perpetrator has died, fled, or cannot be produced. Novindri also cited the World Bank’s Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative, which has positioned this mechanism as a complement to criminal proceedings. "Therefore, Indonesia’s design must ensure that non-conviction based criminal asset forfeiture can overcome real obstacles while still being accompanied by adequate safeguards," he said. Novindri stated that he has examined two drafts of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, from 2023 and 2024. He noted a fundamental difference between the two regarding the method of asset forfeiture without conviction. In the previous draft, the asset forfeiture method could be carried out purely without a criminal verdict, or in rem, meaning the action is directed at the asset, not the owner. Meanwhile, the latest draft combines both approaches. "And the latest draft combines two paths at once, namely forfeiture based on a criminal verdict and forfeiture against a criminal verdict, which I abbreviate as NCB or non-conviction based forfeiture," he said.