Observer: Asset Forfeiture Bill must guarantee public protection

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Legal observer Hardjuno Wiwoho has reminded lawmakers that the Asset Forfeiture Bill must be accompanied by legal certainty and guarantees of public protection so that it does not provoke fear within society.

“This must not become propaganda that frightens the public,” said Hardjuno during a public hearing with Commission III of the House of Representatives (DPR RI) in Jakarta on Monday, as quoted from a written statement.

At the meeting, he submitted a policy paper titled “Building an Effective, Fair, and Legally Certain Asset Forfeiture System”.

He explained that the concept presented in the document concerns legal certainty that includes guarantees of public protection.

Hardjuno said he would support the formation of the Asset Forfeiture Law to strengthen the recovery of assets derived from criminal acts.

“Non-conviction-based confiscation must not be taken to mean that the state can act arbitrarily. On the contrary, the mechanism must be transparent and accountable,” he stated.

Hardjuno proposed a Progressive NCB–Legal Certainty Model built on seven principles: asset-oriented law enforcement, limitations on the NCB mechanism, certainty of proof, judicial control, protection of third parties acting in good faith, proportionality, and maximisation of the value of recovered assets.

He also asked that the state first present sufficient evidence of the link between the asset and the criminal act.

According to him, the burden of proof may only shift to the asset owner after the state meets an initial evidentiary threshold that is clearly defined in the law.

Therefore, he said, the bill must regulate mechanisms for the return of assets and grant the public the right to challenge blocking or seizure through the courts.

Hardjuno also stressed that forfeited assets must be managed transparently and genuinely used for the public interest.

In this way, he said, the Asset Forfeiture Bill must balance the state’s need to recover the proceeds of crime with protection of legitimately acquired property.

“The state must not be slower than the proceeds of crime. Yet the state must also not become more dangerous than the crime it seeks to eradicate,” Hardjuno said.