Discussing Asset Forfeiture Bill, Legislator Pushes for Time Limit on Seizing Criminal Proceeds

JAKARTA - A member of the House of Representatives Commission III, Safaruddin, has emphasised the need for regulations regarding time limits for criminal acts in the asset forfeiture process. According to him, such provisions are necessary in the Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture Related to Criminal Acts to prevent the seizure of assets not relevant to the time of the crime’s occurrence. “We must not allow all assets to be seized without considering the time of the criminal act. This must be regulated clearly,” Safaruddin stated during a general hearing (RDPU) with the Indonesian Law Students Association (PERMAHI), as quoted from the YouTube broadcast of TVR Parlemen on Wednesday (8/4/2026). Asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction, Safaruddin said, must be regulated clearly and in detail in the Asset Forfeiture Bill. He stressed that asset forfeiture in law enforcement must have legal certainty and should not be based solely on suspicion. “We may carry out seizures, but judicial oversight must remain in place. All actions must be testable substantively,” Safaruddin added. The Head of the DPR Expert Body, Bayu Dwi Anggono, stated that the draft Asset Forfeiture Bill consists of eight chapters and 62 articles. This was conveyed by Bayu during a hearing (RDP) with Commission III of the DPR on Thursday (15/1/2026). “In the context of why this bill is important, it ensures that the proceeds of crime cannot be enjoyed by the perpetrators. Primarily for crimes motivated by economic gain and the like, so that they can be recovered,” Bayu said during the RDP on Thursday. “Regarding the types of assets that can be forfeited, the first type is assets known or reasonably suspected to have been used or already used as tools or means to commit criminal acts or to obstruct the judicial process,” Bayu explained. The second type of assets that can be forfeited are those that are direct proceeds of the criminal act. “The second is assets resulting from the criminal act,” Bayu said. “The third is other legitimate assets owned by the perpetrator of the criminal act to pay for losses equivalent to the assets that have been declared forfeited by the state,” Bayu added.