Discussing the Asset Confiscation Bill, Golkar Legislator Warns of Potential 'Abuse of Power'

Member of the House of Representatives’ Commission III, Soedeson Tandra, has provided critical notes regarding the preparation of the Asset Confiscation Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset). He reminded of the importance of meticulousness in using legal terminology to prevent overlapping regulations that could trigger abuse of power.

Soedeson highlighted the fundamental differences between the terms confiscation, seizure, and asset recovery from a legal theory perspective.

“There is the term asset confiscation, asset seizure, and asset recovery. For me, who studied law, these three things are different,” said Tandra during a public hearing on the Asset Confiscation Bill on Monday (6/4/2026).

This Golkar Party politician emphasised that Indonesia’s legal system adheres to the conviction-based principle, where a person cannot be declared guilty without a court decision that has final legal force. This aligns with Article 6 of the Basic Law on Judicial Power.

He questioned the mechanism for confiscating assets without proof of the underlying criminal act, especially in material offences such as corruption.

“Well, conviction-based is already everywhere, right? The Corruption Law, the Money Laundering Law, the Human Trafficking Law. Technically speaking, corruption is a material offence. It must be proven first. So how can someone’s assets be confiscated without proof?” he asserted.

Tandra spotlighted the discourse on implementing Non-Conviction Based (NCB) or asset confiscation without criminal prosecution, which has become a public demand. According to him, the application of NCB should be limited to certain conditions, such as when the perpetrator flees or dies. However, he reminded of the legal doctrine that criminal penalties are extinguished when a person dies.

“Then now I direct it to the demand from the public that says just take it. Right? Meaning non-conviction based. Well, for non-conviction based, I more agree with the term asset recovery or in Madurese, asset recovery. Right? Like that. So that there is no abuse of power,” Tandra quipped.

Furthermore, Soedeson explained the technical obstacles if confiscation is carried out through civil lawsuits, which he assessed would not run quickly. He also questioned the synchronisation of regulations if the bill is eventually passed.

“Well, we here are tasked with how to draft this bill. What is the term? Asset confiscation? If it’s confiscation, it must be preceded by seizure first. If it’s asset recovery, can the prosecutor’s office directly take that property? Right? This is theoretically and regulatorily conflicting later,” he concluded.