Legislator Denies Nomenclature Change for Asset Forfeiture Bill

Member of House Commission III from the PDIP faction, Nasyirul Falah Amru, has affirmed that the nomenclature of the Asset Forfeiture Bill will not be changed to the Asset Protection Bill. Falah said there has been no official decision within House Commission III regarding a change to the bill’s nomenclature.

“I refute the rumour circulating on social media regarding the change of nomenclature of the Asset Forfeiture Bill to the Asset Protection Bill. I affirm that to date there has been no decision by House Commission III to change the nomenclature of the Asset Forfeiture Bill to the Asset Protection Bill,” Falah told reporters on Friday (14/8/2026).

Falah explained that the nomenclature change to the Asset Protection Bill was a proposal from Bambang Harymurti during a Public Hearing Meeting of House Commission III with experts some time ago.

“The discourse was merely a proposal submitted by public expert and press figure Bambang Harymurti during the public hearing,” he said.

According to Falah, changing the nomenclature of the Asset Forfeiture Bill would alter the purpose of the bill. He assessed that the terminology ‘Asset Forfeiture’ already reflects legal action against assets related to criminal offences.

“Changing the nomenclature of Asset Forfeiture is tantamount to changing the meaning of the purpose of this bill. Because from the outset, this bill has been championed by the public as an instrument to strengthen the eradication of corruption and to recover assets derived from criminal acts,” Falah said.

“I consider the term ‘Asset Forfeiture’ to have a firm meaning and to reflect legal action against assets related to criminal acts. The term, in my view, also represents the repressive character of the state towards corruption crimes that have caused widespread harm to society and the state,” he said.

Previously, the proposal emerged from public expert and press figure Bambang Harymurti during a Public Hearing Meeting of House Commission III on Tuesday (11/8). He admitted he did not want the law to end up legalising efforts to steal assets legally.

“I was somewhat presumptuous in trying to search, because I am an editor, for what title would actually be more appropriate for the Asset Forfeiture Law. And I tried to propose that it would be better for the title of the law to be Protecting Assets, the People’s Assets and Their Recovery,” Bambang said at the meeting.

He highlighted that the Asset Forfeiture Bill has the potential to grant extraordinary authority to the state to take over private property rights. Bambang said the bill must have strong protection against possible misuse.

“Do not let the Asset Forfeiture Law instead legalise acts of misuse into legal asset theft,” he said.