Controversial Provisions in Draft Economic Crime Emergency Law
Several provisions in the draft Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perpu) on combating economic crime have been deemed problematic because they expand the authority of the Attorney General’s office in handling economic crime cases.
“With such broad scope, virtually all economic activities deemed to impact national stability could potentially fall under these rules,” said Haidar Alwi, founder of the Haidar Alwi Institute, in a written statement on Tuesday, 17 March 2026.
He noted that Article 2 of the draft Perpu expands the definition of economic crime to cover various sectors including taxation, banking, commerce, and electronic transactions. Additional categories such as financial cyber crime and capital flight are also included as part of economic crime.
“This creates a very large space for prosecutorial interpretation,” said Haidar.
Furthermore, Article 3 of the draft Perpu positions the Attorney General’s office as the centre for case handling through the establishment of a special task force. This task force possesses authority ranging from investigation to asset recovery. According to Haidar, this model could potentially weaken the system of checks and balances.
Another problem arises in Article 4 of the draft Perpu. This provision allows the task force to take over investigations of economic cases from other agencies, including the police and the Corruption Eradication Commission. This provision is considered likely to trigger inter-agency conflict among law enforcement bodies.
Haidar also highlighted provisions in Article 5 of the draft Perpu. This article opens access to financial data without being bound by banking secrecy. Although aimed at expediting asset tracing, this measure is considered risky to privacy protection.
Article 6 regulates settlement mechanisms through fines that allow case termination outside court. Haidar warned that this scheme is prone to becoming a forum for legal bargaining if not strictly monitored.
“However, if not strictly monitored, this mechanism also has the potential to create legal bargaining practices that are vulnerable to abuse by prosecutors,” said Haidar.
The Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Alumni Association of the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) further noted that provisions in Article 8 of the draft Perpu grant authority for asset seizure and sale before court verdicts. This provision is considered to contradict the presumption of innocence.
Subsequently, Article 9 regulates criminal penalties for those deemed to obstruct investigations. According to Haidar, this provision could conflict with the principle of the right against self-incrimination.
“The problem is that in modern criminal law systems, the principle of the right against self-incrimination (right to remain silent) is recognised. If the obligation to provide information is too broad, this principle could be threatened,” he said.