Legal Literacy - Recently, the Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture (RUU) has resurfaced. President Prabowo Subianto stated that the government is ready to encourage discussions on this Bill, while the DPR 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 regulation which is actually very vital. However, the more important question is how should this Bill be placed in a legal perspective, and what challenges need to be anticipated so that it does not simply 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 sentenced to prison. However, on the other hand, the assets from the 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 to recover huge losses. The Asset Forfeiture Bill is present as a solution to that weakness. It introduces a civil mechanism or non-conviction based asset forfeiture, where the state can confiscate 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 United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) 2003 which emphasizes the importance of asset forfeiture mechanisms, including without a criminal conviction. The delay of this regulation for almost two decades shows political resistance as well as the state's hesitation in balancing legal effectiveness and the protection of human rights.