House Commission III Reveals Crucial Points in Asset Forfeiture Bill Debate

Chairman of House Commission III Habiburokhman has confirmed that his team is continuing to discuss the Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture. He revealed that several substantive issues remain under debate.

Habiburokhman stated that one of the debates concerns the potential for abuse of power. He said his team is still striving to strike a balance between the interest of recovering assets and limiting the potential for abuse of power.

“The first substantive debate among colleagues is about how to balance the interest of asset recovery to return state losses with limiting the potential for abuse of power by law enforcement officials. It must not become an abuse of power in the name of asset forfeiture,” Habiburokhman said during a press conference at the DPR, Jakarta, Monday (13/7/2026).

He noted that many parties have provided input regarding the appropriate limitations. He expressed hope that the Asset Forfeiture Bill would ultimately enable the maximum recovery of assets derived from crime without criminalising innocent individuals.

“This is the input we received from colleagues, regarding where the appropriate boundary lies. We are certainly committed to ensuring as much asset recovery as possible, but on the other hand, innocent people must not be criminalised by unscrupulous law enforcement officials,” he said.

Furthermore, Habiburokhman stressed that his commission has also received considerable input regarding a special body to manage criminal assets. He said many parties have proposed that assets should not be managed by law enforcement agencies.

“There has been a lot of input regarding the need for a special institution to handle the management of these seized assets. Because, as they say, if it is only the Attorney General’s Office, their duties are investigating, prosecuting, and so forth. They do not handle where to manage these assets,” he stated.

He added that there is also debate concerning the nomenclature. “There was input on that as well. Then the nomenclature, whether we will follow what is stipulated in UNCAC, which is asset recovery. If we translate asset recovery, it means pemulihan aset, so will we use the term asset forfeiture?” he said.

He mentioned that there has been input suggesting the bill be named Asset Recovery. However, he noted that asset forfeiture is a concrete action within asset recovery.

“But this has not been decided yet. We still need input from the public on what this will look like,” he concluded.