Legal Literacy - Recently, the Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture has resurfaced. President Prabowo Subianto stated that the government is ready to encourage discussions on this Bill, while the DPR (People's Representative Council) has also expressed its readiness to follow up. This political stance gives new hope to the public who for years have witnessed the push and pull of interests behind this truly vital regulation. However, the more important question is how this Bill should be placed in a legal perspective, and what challenges need to be anticipated so that it does not merely become a political symbol?
Indonesia has long faced fundamental problems in eradicating corruption and economic crimes. On the one hand, criminal law instruments have allowed perpetrators to be subject to imprisonment. However, on the other hand, assets from crime are not always successfully returned to the state. The asset recovery process (asset recovery) is still weak because it depends entirely on criminal evidence. If the defendant flees, dies, or the case is not formally proven, the assets from the crime remain safe in the hands of the perpetrator or are transferred to another party. This loophole causes the state to lose the potential for recovering large amounts of losses. Bill on Asset Confiscation is here as a solution to that weakness. It introduces a civil mechanism or non-conviction based asset forfeiture, where the state can seize assets from crime without having to wait for a final and binding criminal verdict (inkracht). The focus is not on punishing people, but on ensuring that wealth allegedly derived from criminal acts is not enjoyed by the perpetrators or their families. With this model, the state can act more quickly and effectively to prevent assets from being transferred or disguised. Normatively, the urgency of this Bill is undeniable. First, it is an answer to the weakness of the effectiveness of criminal law which has so far only been oriented towards punishing individuals, but often fails to recover state losses. Second, it is an international obligation. Indonesia has ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption UNCAC (United Nations Convention Against Corruption) 2003, which emphasizes the importance of asset forfeiture mechanisms, including without a criminal conviction. The delay in this regulation for almost two decades reveals political resistance as well as the state's hesitation in balancing legal effectiveness and the protection of human rights.
Perspectives and Views of Legal Experts
This is where the legal problem arises. The main criticism of the Asset Forfeiture Bill is the potential violation of property rights and the principle of presumption of innocence (presumption of innocence). Critics worry that this mechanism will be used as a repressive tool by officials to suppress political opponents or certain groups. From a constitutional law and human rights perspective, these concerns are valid and must be addressed seriously. However, it is important to note that a number of experts view this Bill as an urgent necessity. Professor of Criminal Law at Gadjah Mada University, Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, has stated on several occasions that the asset forfeiture mechanism is a form of modernization of criminal law. According to him, “asset forfeiture is not a punishment against people, but against objects suspected of being the proceeds of crime.” Thus, as long as the procedure still goes through the courts, the principle of human rights will not be violated. A similar opinion was also expressed by the former Chairman of the KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission), Busyro Muqoddas, who assessed that the delay in this Bill was mostly due to political resistance. “Those who are afraid of this Bill are certainly those who have an interest in saving the proceeds of corruption,” he said. This view underscores the importance of transparency and political courage in enacting regulations. The principle of justice can be maintained if the asset forfeiture mechanism still goes through court supervision. This means that law enforcement officials should not be given absolute authority to confiscate assets, but must submit a request to the court, where the owner is given the opportunity to prove the origin of the assets. This process is important so that the principle of due process of law. (due process of law) is respected. Thus, the Asset Forfeiture Bill can stand on two legs: effectively recovering state losses while not ignoring the constitutional rights of citizens.
Implementation Challenges and Future Expectations
Although conceptually accountable, its implementation will face serious challenges. First, the potential for abuse of authority must be anticipated with safeguards (protection mechanisms) that are strong. Second, the capacity of law enforcement officials is still weak, especially in terms of financial forensics (financial forensic), tracking cross-border fund flows, and international cooperation. If these capabilities are not strengthened, the effectiveness of the Bill will be limited to legal text. Third, political resistance from vested interests cannot be ignored. The fact that this Bill has repeatedly been included in the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) since 2008 but has always failed to be passed demonstrates how strong the interests are in maintaining the status quo. The statements by President Prabowo and the DPR (House of Representatives) to immediately discuss this Bill do provide a breath of fresh air. However, from a legal perspective, what is more crucial is ensuring that the discussion is transparent, accountable, and not merely a political commodity. The participation of civil society, academics, and independent institutions is absolutely necessary to ensure that the substance of the Bill truly addresses legal needs. This Bill essentially touches on the essence of substantive justice. The law must not stop at punishing perpetrators but must ensure that the proceeds of crime are returned for the benefit of the people. If the assets from crime are allowed to circulate in the hands of the perpetrators or their circles, the public will continue to feel that the law is only sharp downwards and blunt upwards. In other words, the enactment of this Bill is not just a matter of legislative technique but a moral and political test for the nation. Now, the ball is in the hands of the government and the DPR. If President Prabowo is consistent with his statements and the DPR is truly serious, this is the moment to prove that the commitment to eradicating corruption does not stop at slogans. The Asset Forfeiture Bill must be immediately passed with a guarantee that its implementation prioritizes fair, transparent, and accountable legal principles. Only in that way can the law be trusted again as an instrument of justice, not just mere rhetoric.
Comment (0)
Write a comment