CORE: Utilisation of seized assets by the state must be accompanied by transparency

The idea of activating assets before auction is actually sensible, especially if the goal is to accelerate debt recovery. Jakarta (ANTARA) - Economist from the Center of Reform on Economics (CORE), Yusuf Rendy Manilet, stated that the utilisation of seized assets by the state must be accompanied by transparency. Yusuf believes that Ministerial Regulation on Finance (PMK) No. 23 of 2026, which revises PMK 240/2016 on the Management of State Receivables, addresses the classic issue regarding seized assets, namely assets that lie idle and continuously lose value. “Economically, it is inefficient. The state bears the costs, but there is no cash flow coming in. So the idea of activating assets before auction is actually sensible, especially if the goal is to accelerate debt recovery,” Yusuf said when contacted by ANTARA in Jakarta on Wednesday. However, the mechanism of the market being replaced by administrative decisions poses a challenge. According to Yusuf, auctions are not just a procedure, but a tool to ensure fair prices and an open process. When the auction system is eliminated, the fate of seized assets depends on internal assessments and the discretion of officials. “This is where the potential for deviations is wide open, especially if there is no transparent price comparison or competition among parties interested in utilising the assets,” he added. Therefore, Yusuf emphasised that the supervisory design must be implemented optimally, with transparency as the foundation. All assets that are utilised need to be announced to the public with their appraised value, utilisation scheme, and who the user is. In addition, price assessments must involve independent parties to leave no room for “undervaluation”. “Ideally, there should still be an element of competition, even if not a full auction, for example through limited offers so that the resulting price remains rational,” said Yusuf. From the impact side, Yusuf sees positive effects on state revenues in the short term. Assets that were previously idle can start generating income. On the other hand, there is a relatively significant trade-off in terms of legal certainty. “Business actors may see this as a signal that the state has very broad authority over assets in dispute, even before the process is fully completed. This could affect risk perceptions in doing business,” he stated. As a note, one of the changes in PMK 23/2026 is the addition of an inserted article in Article 186A, which states that collateral goods or other assets belonging to the primary debtor that have been seized by the state can be utilised by the government through the State Debt Affairs Committee (PUPN) without needing the approval of the primary debtor. Head of the Communication and Information Services Bureau of the Ministry of Finance, Deni Surjantoro, stated that the utilisation of seized assets without auction by the government is managed strictly and in layers to avoid the risk of conflicts of interest. He also emphasised that the utilisation of seized assets is not done unilaterally, but through a check and balance mechanism that can be accounted for administratively and legally.