London Student: Asset Forfeiture Bill Must Answer Modern Economic Crime Challenges

A Master of Laws (LL.M.) student from King’s College London, M. Fishabililah, known as Bill, has stated that the Asset Forfeiture Bill must be utilised to present a regulation capable of answering the challenges of modern economic crime, especially those related to the cross-border concealment of assets. He noted that the challenge in eradicating economic crime in Indonesia is the low rate of asset recovery compared to the scale of state losses. This situation allows perpetrators to continue enjoying the proceeds of their crimes. “This regulation must ensure that crime does not become a path to profit,” Bill said during a virtual hearing with the House of Representatives’ (DPR) Commission III in Jakarta on Tuesday. He therefore appreciated the Commission’s focus on the bill and urged that its deliberation be conducted carefully, involving public participation and input from academics and practitioners. Bill pointed to the United Kingdom’s regulatory framework, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which have successfully improved asset recovery through mechanisms like Civil Recovery and Unexplained Wealth Orders. However, he cautioned that Indonesia cannot fully adopt the UK model and must instead tailor the regulation to the characteristics of its national legal system. He stressed that the success of the Asset Forfeiture Bill depends on institutional readiness and called for strong coordination among law enforcement agencies, including the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK), the Directorate General of General Legal Administration (AHU), and the Supreme Court. The alumnus of the University of Indonesia’s Faculty of Law further recommended that the DPR consolidate all existing asset recovery provisions into a single, comprehensive law. He also urged the DPR to make the in persona mechanism the primary foundation of the legal system while opening limited and measured space for the application of new mechanisms. He concluded that the deliberation of the bill must be conducted carefully to produce an effective regulation that maintains a balance between the effectiveness of eradicating economic crime and the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights.