Phrase 'Disproportionate Assets' in Asset Forfeiture Bill Draws Scrutiny

An academic from Airlangga University, Toetik Rahayuningsih, has criticised the phrase ‘disproportionate assets’ in the Asset Forfeiture Bill, arguing it is too vague. She also assessed that the bill could reach ordinary citizens not involved in criminal acts, such as inheritance recipients. The phrase concerning ‘disproportionate assets’ is contained in Article 5, paragraph 2, letter a of the Asset Forfeiture Bill.

‘This is interesting because it is a kind of unreasonable wealth in corruption. But I see it as quite frightening,’ Toetik said during a public hearing with Commission III of the House of Representatives on Thursday, 18 June 2026.

Furthermore, Toetik stressed that the absence of clear boundaries in the application of Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation (NCBC) could potentially violate human rights. The criminal law lecturer assessed that seizing assets without clear evidence constitutes an arbitrary act that would occur if this bill is ratified unilaterally.

‘If disproportionate assets are found, this has the potential to violate human rights. If there is no proof that the asset was obtained from a crime, that is an arbitrary action,’ she stated.

Toetik also highlighted the new paradigm of asset forfeiture without criminal charges, or Non-Conviction Based (NCB). This mechanism represents a leap from Indonesia’s legal system, which has so far adhered to the in personam principle, where the legal target is the perpetrator, not the asset.

Indonesia, she said, adheres to a civil law system that prioritises written legislation. Meanwhile, NCB was born in the common law tradition, which adapts law to judges’ decisions. Due to these differing legal systems, Toetik assessed that this mechanism needs to be adapted very carefully.

‘In common law countries, because their culture is already like that, it might not be too difficult. But in the understanding of our country with a civil law system, positioning an asset as a subject is somewhat difficult because this asset must have an owner,’ she explained.

Toetik’s concerns are not without basis. She has been worried about the double-edged nature of this bill since September 2025, especially as long as the political system remains controlled by an oligarchy and the legal apparatus is not independent. Articles 2 and 5 are considered to have the potential to be misused, either to seize property or to attack the reputation of political opponents.

The same concerns were also voiced by Commission III member Mercy Chriesty Barends. She highlighted the word ‘suspected’ in the bill, which is considered open to multiple interpretations and potentially subject to misuse by law enforcement.

‘So, the word suspected, please provide further explanation. So that it is not open to multiple interpretations, and ultimately, if this law is passed, it cannot be used arbitrarily,’ Mercy said.

The Asset Forfeiture Bill itself has been in progress since 2009, but only entered the 2025–2026 Priority National Legislation Programme during the Prabowo era. The House Expertise Body completed the academic manuscript in January 2026 with 8 chapters and 62 articles, although substantive discussion only began after the June 2026 public hearing.