House Commission III Reviews Proposed Name Change for Asset Forfeiture Bill

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) is currently reviewing a proposal to change the name of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. Deputy Chairman of Commission III, Ahmad Sahroni, stated at the parliament complex in Jakarta on Tuesday that the ongoing discussions have generated various suggestions regarding the bill’s title. “There is an idea whether ‘asset forfeiture’ can be used as the title or if there is another name. Many parties have provided input that the name should not be ‘asset forfeiture’, suggesting ‘asset recovery’ instead,” he said. “It is not easy. It will be recycled to find the right name, so we do not have to keep going back and forth,” he added. On Tuesday, the commission held a public hearing with the Chairman of the Indonesian Advocates Association, Firman Wijaya, and Professor of Law at Sultan Agung Islamic University, Prof. Yeheskiel Minggus Tiranda. During the hearing, Prof. Yeheskiel stated that the naming of the bill must consider various aspects. He analysed the differences between ‘asset forfeiture’ and ‘asset recovery’. He assessed that the term ‘forfeiture’ is more assertive in meaning, while ‘recovery’ carries a more restorative nuance. From a public messaging perspective, he noted that ‘forfeiture’ tends to have a repressive connotation, whereas ‘recovery’ is more humanistic. From a legal framework standpoint, he added, ‘asset forfeiture’ is more oriented towards the perpetrator of a crime. Conversely, ‘asset recovery’ places greater emphasis on the victim, including the state and other aggrieved parties. From an international perspective, he explained that the term ‘asset forfeiture’ is more synonymous with the concept developed in the United States, while the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) uses the term ‘asset recovery’. He argued that the current draft of the bill already contains specific provisions on international cooperation. If the bill adopts the terminology used by UNCAC, it could potentially facilitate international support and cooperation in its implementation. Furthermore, he considered the choice of terminology important in relation to third parties. He opined that the term ‘forfeiture’ might create the impression that assets are simply taken or surrendered, whereas ‘recovery’ better reflects the objective of restoring losses. “These are the aspects that perhaps need consideration in naming this bill,” he said.