Researcher Says UNCAC Does Not Require Asset Forfeiture Without Conviction

Researcher and Open Parliament Institute Executive Director Yadi Surya Diputra said the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) does not require countries to adopt rules on illicit enrichment, or unexplained increases in wealth, and non-conviction-based (NCB) asset forfeiture. He said adopting these measures could create complications.

“There is no obligation for member states to adopt them; they are only to be considered in light of the country’s constitution and its domestic legal conditions,” Yadi said during a public hearing with Commission III of the House of Representatives at the parliamentary complex in Jakarta on Tuesday (27 October 2026).

He said adopting illicit-enrichment rules had proved problematic in some countries, as they could give the impression that all public officials were corrupt.

“In various countries, adopting these rules has become complicated, as if signalling that all officials or public office-holders are rotten. That is the message behind it, and that is what has happened in practice in various countries,” he said.

Yadi said any measurement of increases in wealth must comply with the principles of legality and legal certainty, known as lex certa and lex stricta. He cited the United States, where public officials first divest themselves of their businesses so that their wealth can be measured more easily while they are in office.

“In Indonesia, civil servants and political officials are all allowed to do business, which makes even the LHKPN [state officials’ asset declarations] difficult to assess,” he said.

He added that the use of NCB forfeiture had also caused problems in other countries. Citing the United States again, Yadi described a case involving the seizure of US$5,000 over suspected criminal activity, in which contesting the seizure could require complicated and costly proof.

“The difficulty in the United States is that its legal system cannot handle this, because the cost of proving a case for the person whose property is seized is far greater than the value of the property itself,” he said.