IMC Proposes Decentralised Management of Seized Assets

The Indonesia Millennials Center (IMC) has proposed that the authority regarding the process of asset seizure and management should not be centralised within a single agency. The IMC emphasised that this proposal is intended to prevent the abuse of power.

This input was delivered by IMC representative Rainaldo Rajaguguk during a Public Hearing (RDPU) with Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) to discuss the Asset Seizure Bill at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, on Wednesday (23/09/2026). Rajaguguk initially stated that there are at least four functions that need to be separated within the asset seizure mechanism.

“First, the function of Law Enforcement Agencies (APH) is to investigate, prosecute, and initiate actions against assets,” he said.

Meanwhile, the judiciary should be positioned as the institution providing control and determining the seizure of assets. The next function is asset management.

“The function of the court is to provide control and rule on seizures,” said Rajaguguk.

“The management function involves storing, maintaining, valuing, utilising, and selling assets in accordance with the law,” he continued.

The final function relates to supervision. He stated that there must be a committee to carry out this role.

“Fourth, the supervisory committee function oversees management, ensuring transparency and accountability,” said Rajaguguk.

Rajaguguk also expressed hope that asset management would not be handled by a single agency.

“We hope that management is not concentrated in just one institution. They should not be the ones who determine the value, control the assets, sell them, and supervise themselves,” Rajaguguk remarked.

In a broader context, the Executive Director of IMC, Yeriko Alfredo Manurung, stated that while the state must have the capability to pursue and recover the proceeds of crime, such significant authority must be accompanied by limitations and oversight.

“To prevent the abuse of power, the state must have the ability to pursue and recover the proceeds of crime. However, vast authority without limitations and oversight can create new problems in law enforcement,” said Yeriko.

Yeriko also emphasised the importance of the principle of prudence in the implementation of the Asset Seizure Bill.

“We must ensure that all authority is not exercised arbitrarily without following the principle of prudence,” he said.

“In terms of authority, time limits and procedures must remain controlled,” Yeriko added.

In addition to the separation of functions, the IMC proposed the establishment of an independent supervisory committee for asset management.

Hendro Daniel Sidabutar from the IMC stated that oversight is required from the moment an asset is designated as an object to be returned to the state.

“Furthermore, regarding future asset management related to seizures, we hope there will be at least an independent asset management supervisory committee,” said Hendro.