Legal Experts Debate Pros and Cons of Asset Seizure Without Criminal Conviction
Indonesia’s Parliament is currently preparing an academic draft of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. Legal expert Hardjuno Wiwoho stated that Indonesia currently lacks comprehensive regulations regarding the mechanism of asset forfeiture without criminal prosecution.
Hardjuno noted that non-conviction based asset forfeiture (NCB) has long been part of the international framework in efforts to recover assets derived from criminal activities, particularly corruption and money laundering.
He explained that Indonesia actually ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2006. According to him, in many cases of economic crime such as corruption and money laundering, assets derived from criminal activities are often transferred, hidden, or diverted through various complex financial mechanisms.
“This situation causes the process of recovering state losses to become prolonged because law enforcement typically must wait for a criminal conviction against the perpetrator first,” Hardjuno told journalists on Saturday (14 March 2026).
Hardjuno then explained that this concept allows the state to seize assets suspected of deriving from criminal activities without having to await a criminal verdict against the perpetrator. This approach, he said, shifts the focus of law enforcement away from merely pursuing criminal perpetrators.
He also added that this mechanism has been applied in several countries as an important instrument in recovering state assets, particularly in cases of corruption, money laundering, and cross-border economic crime.
“However, in the Indonesian context, its implementation remains debated because it relates to the protection of private property rights and the principle of legal certainty,” he said.
“Asset forfeiture must not disregard legal certainty and protection of people’s rights,” he added.
Furthermore, according to him, if this non-conviction based asset forfeiture mechanism is implemented, its regulation must be formulated clearly and comprehensively to ensure legal certainty and protection of people’s rights.
Discussed in Parliament
Commission III of the Indonesian Parliament has begun discussing the Asset Forfeiture Bill. In the academic draft, the Asset Forfeiture Bill will regulate the mechanism of asset forfeiture without being preceded by a criminal conviction against the perpetrator.
This was conveyed by the Head of the DPR Expertise Body, Bayu Dwi Anggono, during a hearing session of Commission III at the Parliamentary Complex in Senayan, Jakarta, on Thursday (15 January 2026). Bayu said the Asset Forfeiture Bill will regulate two models of asset forfeiture: conviction based forfeiture and non-conviction based forfeiture.
“In this Bill, we recognise two concepts: conviction based forfeiture, wherein asset forfeiture is carried out based on a criminal conviction against the perpetrator,” said Bayu.
Bayu stated that with conviction based forfeiture, asset seizure is conducted after a final criminal verdict against the perpetrator. Whereas, for non-conviction based forfeiture, it allows asset seizure even when the perpetrator has not or not yet been processed criminally, subject to certain conditions and criteria.
“So we are adopting these two concepts. The conviction based concept already exists in various Indonesian laws, but it is scattered across different statutes. Of course, the issue that arises is the absence of regulation regarding non-conviction based forfeiture,” he explained.
“This will certainly be the main focus in the context of the Asset Forfeiture Bill relating to criminal offences,” he added.