Expert Proposes Renaming Asset Forfeiture Bill to Asset Protection Bill

Public policy expert Bambang Harymurti has proposed changing the nomenclature of the Asset Forfeiture Bill to the Asset Protection Bill. He does not want this legal framework to ultimately legitimise efforts to steal assets legally.

Bambang made the proposal during a public hearing (RDPU) with House of Representatives Commission III regarding the Asset Forfeiture Bill. He stated that the purpose of the bill is to recover state assets.

“I am being somewhat presumptuous in trying to find, as an editor, what title would actually be more appropriate for the Asset Forfeiture Law. And I am trying to propose that the title of the law should instead be Protecting Assets, the People’s Assets and Their Recovery,” Bambang said during the meeting at the Parliamentary Complex in Jakarta on Tuesday, 11 August 2026.

Bambang then highlighted that the Asset Forfeiture Bill has the potential to grant extraordinary authority to the state to take over private property. He said the bill must have strong protections against possible abuse.

“Do not let the Asset Forfeiture Law instead legitimise acts of abuse into legal asset theft,” he said.

He proposed ten protective safeguards for people’s rights that could serve as guidelines in the deliberation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. Bambang hopes the bill will not become a tool of political intimidation.

“The first legal principle is that permanent asset forfeiture must be decided by an independent court. This is important — independent. Second, the state must continue to bear the burden of proof,” he said.

Bambang then demanded that the standard of proof be clear and strict. In addition, seizure without a court order must be limited only to extraordinary circumstances.

“The provisions for extraordinary circumstances must be formulated in writing and be closed, not open to multiple interpretations,” he said.

Bambang also stressed that unexplained wealth cannot automatically be considered as assets derived from crime. Furthermore, he said, third parties acting in good faith and innocent spouses must be protected.

“Do not let it become guilty by association. Seventh, there must be a factual and temporal connection between the criminal act and the asset. Eighth, asset management must be independent and transparent,” Bambang said.

“Ninth, restitution and compensation must be available for wrongful forfeiture. And tenth, this is important, abuse of authority for political purposes must be expressly prohibited,” he said.