Commission III: Scope of Asset Forfeiture Should Extend Beyond Corruption
The Chairman of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI), Habiburokhman, stated that the scope of asset forfeiture regulations in several countries does not only target corruption. He noted that various other criminal acts that harm the state and the public could also be targeted through asset forfeiture mechanisms.
“In other countries, the scope of the Asset Forfeiture Bill is not limited to corruption. This is because there are several other criminal offences that, in substance, also harm the state and the wider community,” Habiburokhman said in a written statement on Wednesday (2/9).
He cited the United States as an example, where through the civil forfeiture regime, law enforcement can seize proceeds from drug crimes, money laundering, smuggling, and even capital market securities manipulation. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom possesses the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), strengthened by Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWO), which targets the forfeiture of assets from serious crime, tax evasion, and organised fraud without requiring a prior criminal conviction.
“Australia regulates asset forfeiture through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which covers organised crime, drug trafficking, customs crimes, and large-scale financial crimes,” he added.
He stated that Commission III has received significant input suggesting that narcotics, terrorism, investment fraud, environmental crimes, taxation, and the insurance sector are urgent areas to be included under a non-conviction based asset forfeiture regime. He argued that the spectrum of damage caused by these crimes is equally destructive.
Habiburokhman noted that in narcotics and terrorism cases, asset forfeiture could sever funding flows and seize the logistical assets of drug lords and terrorist networks. He described this as the most effective way to cripple the regeneration of such criminal activities.
“In cases of investment and insurance fraud, the recovery of victim losses is essential, as it often stalls because perpetrators disguise or transfer their assets,” he said.
He emphasised that the fundamental principle of asset forfeiture is to ensure that no criminal is allowed to enjoy the proceeds of unlawful acts—the principle that ‘crime does not pay’. On the other hand, he stressed that law enforcement agencies operating the Asset Forfeiture Law must be truly integrous, incorruptible, and must not use the law to criminalise individuals unfairly.
“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 and restore public losses comprehensively,” he stated.
Previously, Commission III submitted a list of 13 types of criminal offences that could be subject to asset forfeiture under the Asset Forfeiture Bill. The 13 offences included:
Corruption;
Narcotics and psychotropic substances;
Terrorism;
Human trafficking;
Smuggling of weapons, ammunition, and dangerous materials;
Forestry crimes;
Environmental crimes;
Taxation crimes;
Banking crimes;
Insurance crimes;
Mining crimes;
Marine and fisheries crimes; and/or
Human trafficking.