DPR Warns of Corruption Risk in Asset Forfeiture Bill Due to Centralised Prosecutorial Powers

An academic from Airlangga University, Toetik Rahayuningsih, stated that the Asset Forfeiture Bill grants overly broad authority. Under the bill, the prosecutor’s office would have the power to trace, seize, manage, and execute assets. “I am concerned that, in quotation marks, there will be new forms of corruption,” Toetik said during a hearing with House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III at the Nusantara II Building, Senayan, on Thursday, 18 June 2026.

According to her, the dominance of the prosecutor’s office is too centralised and risky without adequate supervision, as the institution is granted authority over asset forfeiture from tracing through to management.

Commission III member Mercy Chriesty Barends also highlighted the prosecutorial powers. She stressed that the functions of prosecution and asset management should be separated. “The Prosecutor’s Office should only carry out pro justitia functions,” she said. “The management must be regulated separately. There should be an independent appraisal to ensure transparency and accountability.”

Another Commission III member, Rikwanto, questioned whether a new institution outside the prosecutor’s office needs to be formed to manage seized assets. “Do we need to create a separate institution later? A separate institution outside the Attorney General’s Office,” he said. He cautioned that unprofessional asset management could harm the state, citing palm oil plantations or mines whose value could plummet if not managed properly.

This institutional strengthening of the prosecutor’s office comes amid the transfer of management of the State Confiscated Goods Storage House (Rupbasan) from the Ministry of Immigration and Corrections to the Attorney General’s Office in April 2025. The prosecutor’s office also formed a special team, JAGO (Justice Abroad Global Outreach), in October 2025 to strengthen the tracing and recovery of assets from transnational crimes abroad, and it possesses a strong legal foundation following a Constitutional Court ruling that rejected a judicial review of prosecutorial immunity powers in October 2025.

The Asset Forfeiture Bill has been included in the 2025–2026 Priority National Legislation Programme and is currently still under discussion in Commission III of the DPR, with the issue of oversight being one of the critical points on which no agreement has yet been reached.