UGM Legal Expert: Asset Forfeiture Law Must Strengthen Corruption Eradication
The House of Representatives (DPR RI) has promised that the Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU Perampasan Aset) can be passed by December 2026 at the latest. Gadjah Mada University (UGM) legal expert Oce Madril believes the enactment of the regulation needs to be accompanied by substance capable of strengthening corruption eradication while providing protection for the rights of the public.
Oce said that procedurally, the Asset Forfeiture Bill is very likely to be passed this year because it has been included in the 2026 Priority National Legislation Programme (Prolegnas). Commission III of the DPR RI is also considered to have been quite intensive in discussing the bill’s material by involving academics and legal practitioners.
However, according to Oce, the challenge is not only ensuring certainty over the timing of the enactment, but also ensuring that the substance of the Asset Forfeiture Law is in line with the constitution and public expectations.
In principle, Oce said, the 1945 Constitution provides protection for property. Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution essentially states that every person has the right to protection of property under their control.
“However, state protection of property does not apply to wealth obtained illegally, and this is where the importance of the Asset Forfeiture Bill lies, so that the state has a strong foundation to pursue wealth derived from criminal proceeds,” said Oce, who is also Executive Director of the Association for the Study of Government Law and Anti-Corruption, in a statement on Monday (31/8/2026).
Oce assessed that there are five crucial issues that need attention in the discussion of the Asset Forfeiture Bill. First, the definition of assets. According to Oce, the debate over the use of the terms asset forfeiture, asset recovery or asset return must not obscure the more fundamental issue, namely the limits of assets that can be pursued by law enforcement.
He believes the definition of assets must be clearly limited to wealth originating from criminal acts. This clarity is needed so that legally obtained assets do not also become objects of seizure by law enforcement.
Second, the combination of conviction-based and non-conviction-based approaches. Oce said that in principle, asset forfeiture is carried out by the state against the proceeds of crime. However, the non-conviction-based mechanism needs to be opened on a limited basis for certain conditions when the criminal law enforcement process faces obstacles.
For example, the mechanism can be applied when a suspect dies, flees or is of unknown whereabouts. Under such conditions, according to Oce, the state still needs to have a mechanism to pursue assets suspected of originating from criminal proceeds.
Third, the division of authority among law enforcement agencies. Oce believes the Asset Forfeiture Bill needs to clearly regulate the roles of each institution involved in tracing and seizing assets derived from crime.
These institutions include the Police, the Attorney General’s Office, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK). According to him, clarity in the division of authority is important to prevent overlap in implementation in the field.
Oce also believes PPATK’s authority needs to be strengthened because the institution has an important role in tracing, freezing, blocking and seizing assets suspected of originating from criminal proceeds.
Fourth, the balance of rights of the parties. According to Oce, the Asset Forfeiture Bill must provide a fair trial mechanism for parties whose assets are seized. Asset owners must have room to file objections through a fair and impartial judicial mechanism.
This right, he continued, also needs to be granted to third parties who have an interest in the seized assets. This mechanism is important to ensure that law enforcement actions do not eliminate the rights of parties unrelated to the criminal act.
Fifth, the institution for managing seized assets. Oce believes the management of assets derived from crime needs attention because the value of assets saved by the state is quite large.
KPK data shows that throughout 2020-2025, the proceeds of corruption returned by the KPK reached around Rp5 trillion. Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s Office saved state financial losses amounting to Rp131 trillion throughout 2020-2026.
According to Oce, these figures only come from corruption offences and do not yet account for assets originating from other crimes, such as narcotics, online gambling, mining, illegal logging and illegal fishing.
The large value of assets derived from crime, according to Oce, requires professional management through a special institution. The institution needs to have the authority to store, maintain, utilise and return seized assets.
Oce proposed that the asset management institution be placed under the President and staffed by professionals in the field of asset management. To prevent irregularities, he believes the supervision and audit mechanisms for the institution also need to be clearly regulated.
According to Oce, strengthening the asset forfeiture mechanism must ultimately go hand in hand with protecting the rights of the public. With a clear regulatory design, the Asset Forfeiture Bill is expected to become an instrument for pursuing the proceeds of crime while strengthening corruption eradication without opening room for abuse of authority.