Institutionalising the Asset Management Function
The establishment of an institution is fundamentally aimed at carrying out a specific function. Therefore, the main issue in forming an institution is not the presence or absence of an organisation, but whether there is a state function that has not been adequately handled (Malian, 2022).
In the context of discussing the Asset Forfeiture Bill, a proposal has emerged to form a special institution to manage seized assets and assets confiscated from criminal proceeds. This idea stems from a genuine need. It is not enough for the state to merely seize or confiscate assets resulting from crime; it must also be able to maintain, manage, value, utilise, and return them to the state, victims, or entitled parties.
The question is, does this function truly not exist at present? When mapped out, the management of assets from criminal proceeds is actually already spread across several regulations.
Firstly, the Attorney General’s Office currently has an Asset Recovery Agency based on Attorney General Regulation Number 3 of 2024. This agency not only carries out the functions of tracing, forfeiting, and returning assets from criminal proceeds, but also has a unit specifically handling the management of seized assets, confiscated goods, evidence, and execution seized objects.
Secondly, Article 130 of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code regulates that seized objects can be stored in the State Seized Objects Storage House (Rupbasan).
Thirdly, in the field of state asset management, the Ministry of Finance, through the Directorate General of State Assets (DJKN), has extensive institutional experience in managing assets of high economic value.
These regulations show that Indonesia’s legal system should already recognise a special institution for the storage and management of seized objects. The asset management function already exists. However, what is happening is that this function is scattered across various institutions with different mandates, legal bases, and scopes.
Therefore, the main focus of the Asset Forfeiture Bill should not be the establishment of a new institution. Its primary focus should be assessing the adequacy of the current regulations and institutions carrying out the functions of tracing, storing, managing, and recovering assets from criminal proceeds, which are spread across various institutions.
There are three indicators for this. First, the capacity for inter-agency coordination. Currently, the asset recovery function is scattered, for instance, between the Attorney General’s Office and Rupbasan. The consequence is that the more institutions involved, the greater the risk of fragmented authority, delays in asset transfer, and unclear responsibilities.
Second, the ability to maintain the economic value of assets. Assets from crime often depreciate during the legal process. Vehicles become damaged from being stored too long, while land and buildings are neglected. Certain assets can even lose their economic value entirely. As a result, the ability to maintain their value until they can be utilised or auctioned becomes crucial.
Third, the ability to build accountability. The greater the value of assets managed by the state, the greater the risk of abuse of authority. Therefore, mechanisms for supervision, reporting, auditing, and conflict of interest control become non-negotiable necessities.
If these indicators are deemed not to have been adequately met, there are at least two policy options. First, strengthening and integrating the existing functions. Second, centralising the function through the establishment of a new, standalone special institution.
However, both options still raise a number of issues. Among them: what would be the relationship between this new institution and the Attorney General’s Asset Recovery Agency? What would its position be relative to Rupbasan? Would part of the authority for state asset management at the Ministry of Finance be transferred?
The establishment of an asset management institution does not mean creating an entirely new function. Currently, various agencies are already carrying out the functions of tracing, storing, managing, and recovering assets from criminal proceeds. The problem is that these functions are scattered across several institutions with different authorities.
Therefore, the discussion of the Asset Forfeiture Bill should not get caught up in a debate about the necessity of a new institution. What is more important is to organise the existing functions so they work in an integrated system. Lawmakers need to clarify the division of tasks between agencies, strengthen coordination, and build a robust oversight mechanism. In this way, the asset recovery process can run more effectively without creating overlapping authorities.