Parliament: Asset Seizure Without Conviction Risks Abuse of Power
Members of Commission III of the DPR, Soedeson Tandra, stated that the discussion on the Asset Seizure Bill still requires extensive input, especially regarding the non-conviction based mechanism, which is seen as lacking a clear foundation. According to him, the DPR remains cautious in discussing this scheme because it involves the potential for asset seizure without a criminal decision.
“We feel it’s still not sufficient. We will continue to listen, because frankly, regarding non-conviction based, we do not yet have a framework to base it on—how can someone’s assets be seized without them being guilty? Our concern is abuse of power,” Soedeson said when contacted on Tuesday (7/4).
He emphasised that to date, the Asset Seizure Bill does not have strict limits on the types of assets that can be seized. According to him, this is crucial because it concerns the balance between law enforcement and the protection of human rights.
“The criteria for which assets can be seized must be formulated. The scope is broad. If we protect human rights too much, crimes will be hard to uncover. But if we are too lenient, there will be potential for abuse of power. Therefore, we will continue to seek input from experts, the public, anyone,” he added.
The non-conviction based scheme itself is designed to maximise the recovery of state losses without waiting for a criminal verdict. This practice has been implemented in several countries and is considered effective in pursuing assets from criminal proceeds.
Nevertheless, Soedeson revealed that so far, there is a tendency towards agreement that asset seizure should still go through a judicial process and a judge’s decision. This view emerged in various Hearing Meetings (RDP) of Commission III with academics and legal experts.
He also warned of potential conflicts with the constitution, particularly regarding ownership rights as regulated in Article 28H of the 1945 Constitution, as well as principles in the Judicial Power Law that emphasise the importance of court decisions.
“Abuse of power is if there is no court control, how do we measure it? These are inputs from experts. We in the DPR are compiling all of them, and of course, the spirit is the same. When we formulate this law, one of them is to protect people’s rights and prevent abuse of power. But on the other hand, we will also strive to maximise the recovery of state losses,” Soedeson concluded.
Soedeson highlighted the fundamental differences between the terms seizure, confiscation, and asset recovery from a legal theory perspective.
Deputy Chairman of Commission III of the DPR, Ahmad Sahroni, warned that the Asset Seizure Bill should not become a loophole for ‘hanky-panky’ or abuse of power by rogue law enforcers.
Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Study Centre at Gadjah Mada University (Pukat UGM), Oce Madril, provided several critical notes on the Asset Seizure Bill.
Commission III of the DPR RI received input from legal experts regarding the discussion of the Asset Seizure Bill, particularly on the mechanism for handling assets that are disproportionate to the owner’s profile.
Legal experts emphasised that the fair trial principle must be the main foundation in the Asset Seizure Bill to avoid violating citizens’ legal rights.
Member of Commission III of the DPR, Hinca Panjaitan, appreciated the Attorney General’s Office for securing the Karo District Attorney Dante Rajagukguk regarding the handling of the Amsal Sitepu case.
Member of Commission III of the DPR RI, Safaruddin, urged the imposition of firm sanctions against rogue prosecutors proven to have deviated in handling the videographer Amsal Christy Sitepu case.
Member of Commission III of the DPR, I Nyoman Parta, urged the ratification of the Indigenous Peoples Bill as fulfilment of the Republic’s promise.