Indonesian Political, Business & Finance News

Transaction Delays and Trust in the Financial System: An Expert's Explanation

| | Source: REPUBLIKA Translated from Indonesian | Legal
Transaction Delays and Trust in the Financial System: An Expert's Explanation
Image: REPUBLIKA

Jakarta — Delaying banking transactions under certain conditions is part of the mechanism for preventing and handling money laundering offences. Money laundering expert Yunus Husein said this authority has clear limits and legal basis, and therefore does not automatically indicate that a customer has committed a criminal offence.

“Banks have their own authority to delay for five days, but the reasons are limitative,” Yunus said in a statement on Wednesday (26/8/2026).

Yunus explained that Article 26 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law grants financial service providers, including banks, the authority to delay transactions for a maximum of five working days under certain conditions. These include when there is a suspicion that assets derived from criminal proceeds have entered an account, or that an account is being used to hold the proceeds of crime.

He said transaction delays are an authority of financial service providers under conditions stipulated by law. Meanwhile, actions based on Article 70 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law fall within the context of law enforcement authority.

In the case of a Bank Mandiri account linked to fundraising by the Aliansi Masyarakat Pati Bersatu (AMPB), the Metro Jaya Regional Police previously explained that the action taken was a five-working-day transaction delay, not a freeze. Police also stated that transactions would be reopened if no criminal elements were found and the funds in the account were not reduced.

Yunus assessed that transaction delays in this context should be understood as part of a tracing process, not as a determination that the account holder has committed a criminal offence.

Thus, a transaction delay carried out by a bank based on its authority under the Anti-Money Laundering Law does not in itself indicate any wrongdoing or criminal offence by the customer. Determining whether criminal elements exist remains the authority of law enforcement based on the results of an investigation.

View JSON | Print