Experts Urge DPR to Clarify Seized Objects and Mechanisms in Asset Forfeiture Bill
A researcher from the Anti-Corruption Study Center (SAKSI) at Mulawarman University has stated that the House of Representatives’ (DPR) willingness to discuss the Asset Forfeiture Bill must be followed by concrete legislative steps. Herdiansyah Hamzah, a researcher at the centre, emphasised that the need for a legal framework on asset forfeiture has been urgent for the past two decades. “If you ask when the right time to discuss the Asset Forfeiture Bill is, the right time was 20 years ago,” he told Media Indonesia on Monday.
He argued that the prolonged delay in the bill’s deliberation cannot be separated from the fact that corruption also involves legislative circles. “If the bill is passed, the first ones to be dragged in would be DPR members, who, based on data, are the most frequently involved in corruption cases,” he said. According to Herdiansyah, the presence of such a law is crucial because current mechanisms are still limited in pursuing and seizing the proceeds of crime, even though asset recovery is a key part of creating a deterrent effect and recovering state losses.
He explained that one of the crucial materials that must be regulated is the object of asset forfeiture. The regulation needs to clarify the types of assets that can be seized, the value limits, and the predicate crimes that can serve as the basis for forfeiture. He cited that assets originating from corruption, money laundering, terrorism, and various other economic crimes must be explicitly included in the scope of the rules.
Furthermore, he highlighted the importance of incorporating the concept of illicit enrichment, or unexplained wealth. In practice, he noted, there are often cases where officials and state apparatus experience a drastic increase in wealth without being able to demonstrate a legitimate source of income. “Illicit enrichment or unexplained wealth, wealth that increases sharply and irrationally, is what must be able to be seized by the state,” he stated.
Herdiansyah also urged that the bill adopt a non-conviction based asset forfeiture mechanism, which allows for the seizure of assets without having to wait for a final and binding criminal court decision. This mechanism is considered important to anticipate situations where a suspect dies, flees, or deliberately obstructs the judicial process. “Without a court decision, including when the suspect or defendant dies or flees, assets can still be seized in the public interest,” he said.
He also reminded that the deliberation process for the bill must be carried out in a participatory manner, as mandated by the Constitutional Court. The involvement of law enforcement officials, academics, and civil society groups is deemed absolutely necessary so that the resulting regulation has strong legitimacy and can answer the needs of law enforcement. “Civil society cannot be bargained with; they must be involved in the deliberation process of the Asset Forfeiture Bill,” he concluded.