Expert: Reverse Burden of Proof Mechanism in Asset Seizure Bill Must Have Strong Initial Evidence

Criminal law expert from Airlangga University (Unair), Maradona, emphasised that the application of the reverse burden of proof mechanism in the Asset Seizure Bill must not be done arbitrarily. He asserted that investigators remain obligated to present strong initial evidence before the burden of proof is shifted to the asset owner.

According to Maradona, although the right to property is not absolute and is only protected if acquired lawfully, the state must still provide guarantees to prevent abuse of authority by law enforcement officials.

“The reverse burden of proof must begin with the initial burden of proof or prima facie evidence that remains with law enforcement. At the outset, investigators must be able to demonstrate and bring solid evidence before the judge,” said Maradona during a Public Hearing at Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR RI) on Monday (30/3/2026).

Maradona explained that this process is part of due process of law. The judge plays a central role in assessing whether the initial evidence submitted by investigators is strong enough to indicate that the asset originates from criminal activity.

“The judge will assess the initial evidence, whether it is strong enough to state that this is an asset from criminal proceeds. Only then, when the judge states yes, does the reverse burden of proof mechanism emerge, where the asset owner must prove the origin of their wealth,” he clarified.

Regarding the non-conviction based (NCB) asset seizure scheme without criminal prosecution, Maradona opined that this method should ideally be positioned as a complement when conventional mechanisms cannot be implemented.

He provided notes that there must be strict reasons for when law enforcement can enter the realm of asset seizure. For example, he said, when the personal legal process is hindered for certain reasons.

“NCB is actually a complement when there are weaknesses in the conventional side. However, since this is the criminal realm, proof in personam remains the main thing. Entering non-conviction must be a rational choice with strict conditions,” he added.

Furthermore, Maradona reminded the importance of tight control through the judicial system. He emphasised that there must not be unilateral monopoly by law enforcement in determining the fate of an asset. All decisions must go through court assessment to ensure transparency.

“Everything must be assessed by the court, not just from one direction of law enforcement. In addition, institutional separation must be ensured, including in the management of seized asset proceeds,” he concluded.