Expert proposes asset forfeiture must not occur without court ruling

Public policy expert Bambang Harymurti has proposed that asset forfeiture must not be carried out without an independent court ruling in order to protect citizens from abuse of authority by law enforcement.

“There must be no permanent forfeiture without an independent court ruling. Permanent forfeiture must be based on a court decision,” Bambang said during a public hearing on the Asset Forfeiture Bill in Jakarta on Tuesday.

According to him, the law must distinguish between temporary seizure or freezing of assets and permanent forfeiture. Temporary seizure must also be subject to a time limit.

He acknowledged that the state can indeed freeze assets quickly so that they are not sold or transferred. However, investigators, prosecutors, police and administrative bodies must not have the final authority to determine that a person loses the right to their property.

“That decision must rest with an independent court after a process that allows the party affected by state action to defend themselves fully,” he said.

In principle, Bambang said, temporary freezing can only be carried out before trial, while permanent forfeiture must be based on a valid and independent court ruling.

He added that asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction, or non-conviction based forfeiture (NCBAF), must be limited only to extraordinary circumstances. The provisions regarding such extraordinary circumstances must be formulated in writing.

According to him, NCBAF can be justified when the suspect has died, fled, criminal prosecution is impossible, or the perpetrator cannot be brought before a court for certain reasons strictly defined by law.

“These circumstances must constitute clear and limited categories, not formulations that provide excessively broad discretionary space,” he said.

Bambang stressed that NCBAF is an exception to the mechanism of forfeiture through criminal proceedings, rather than a shortcut to avoid criminal proceedings.

Speaking after the hearing, Bambang said the Asset Forfeiture Bill represents good intentions in law enforcement. However, these good intentions must be realised carefully so that they do not turn into harm.

“Good intentions alone are not enough. If one is not careful, if good intentions are not analysed properly, the result may be worse than the intention,” he said.