Experts Urge Clarification on Unbalanced Assets and Income Provisions in Asset Forfeiture Bill

Commission III of the House of Representatives is once again deliberating the Asset Forfeiture Bill by hearing input from experts. Criminal law expert Harkristuti Harkriswono highlighted several crucial points that could potentially cause issues in its implementation.

Harkristuti explained that the bill indeed opens wide opportunities for the state to seize various types of assets related to criminal acts. One point under scrutiny is the provision regarding assets that are not balanced with income.

“One interesting aspect is assets that are not balanced with income or sources of wealth addition that cannot be proven to have been obtained lawfully and are suspected to be related to assets from criminal acts obtained since the enactment of this law,” said Harkristuti during a hearing at the House of Representatives in Senayan on Monday (20/4/2026).

She stated that the phrase still raises questions. According to her, without clear indicators, the provision could be open to multiple interpretations.

“I can imagine what the meaning of balance is like? Is there an indicator? Well, there must be guidelines for judges and prosecutors who will file charges,” she explained.

In her presentation, she also detailed several categories of assets that can be seized, starting from the proceeds of criminal acts, including those that have been donated to third parties.

“First is the proceeds of criminal acts obtained from criminal acts, including those already donated. Well, this will relate to third parties. So if donated to others, to what extent, well, there are my notes or it becomes assets of other people or corporations in the form of capital, income, or other economic benefits,” she said.

Then, Harkristuti mentioned assets suspected of being used for criminal acts, including turnover up to those ‘reasonably suspected’. She requested that the phrase ‘reasonably suspected’ also be clarified to avoid potential misuse.

“Then assets that are known or reasonably suspected to have been used to commit criminal acts. Well, this in our criminal law is called pro parte dolus, pro parte culpa. If known, it’s clear that’s turnover. But if reasonably suspected, that means there’s pro parte culpa,” she said.

“Well, this is also something that I think needs to be explained more in this law so that this issue becomes clearer and does not open the potential for misuse,” she continued.

Furthermore, Harkristuti highlighted legitimate assets owned by perpetrators of criminal acts or substitute assets that have been declared forfeited. Next, assets that are found items known or reasonably suspected.

“Well, this word ‘reasonably suspected’ appears several times, originating from criminal acts,” she added.

Harkristuti also touched on the asset value limit in the bill, namely a minimum of Rp100 million and its connection to criminal acts punishable by four years’ imprisonment or more. She assessed that the parameter still needs deeper examination, considering that Rp100 million can have different meanings in each region.

“Then assets that are seized items obtained from the proceeds of criminal acts. Well, all of this is limited to a minimum value of Rp100 million. Well, this varies if viewed across Indonesia—whether Rp100 million is a lot or not. Or those related to criminal acts punishable by imprisonment of four years or more,” she stated.