Indonesia Asset Forfeiture Bill Raises Abuse of Power Concern

JAKARTA, Jakartaweekly.com—Through the final draft of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, the state has demonstrated its commitment to establishing a mechanism to seize assets suspected of being derived from or used in criminal offenses. This may be carried out through court proceedings and, under certain circumstances, without having to wait for the perpetrator to be criminally convicted.

Under the Asset Forfeiture Bill, the state may forfeit proceeds of crime obtained directly or indirectly from criminal offenses. This includes assets that have been gifted or converted into personal assets, assets belonging to other individuals, or corporate assets.

In addition, assets subject to forfeiture include assets known or suspected to have been used to commit criminal offenses, other legitimate assets owned by the perpetrator that may serve as substitutes for assets that have been declared forfeited by the state, and assets suspected of being derived from criminal offenses.

Yoshua Putra Dinata Naiborhu, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law and Communication at Soegijapranata Catholic University, said the Asset Forfeiture Bill could potentially lead to abuse of power, particularly if the stakeholders involved lack sufficient integrity and sound moral standards.

“So far, the guiding principle of our criminal law has been the presumption of innocence. With the in rem mechanism under this bill, the paradigm of criminal law enforcement would certainly change. If the stakeholders involved lack sufficient integrity and sound moral standards, the law could be used as a tool to criminalize other people’s assets,” Yoshua told Jakartaweekly.com on Tuesday, September 1, 2026.

Yoshua further pointed to existing legal mechanisms that he believes can help minimize the risk of abuse of power. For example, in bankruptcy cases, a debtor is only declared bankrupt and loses the right to administer and manage their assets after a bankruptcy ruling has been issued. Such a ruling is also made based on the interests of multiple creditors, rather than a single creditor.

Another example can be found in civil law, where enforcement can be sought once a court ruling has obtained permanent legal force (in kracht van gewijsde).

“Imagine if assets could be seized without a court ruling. The potential for arbitrary actions would be enormous,” he said.

The Asset Forfeiture Bill also stipulates that other assets subject to forfeiture include assets that are disproportionate to a person’s income or to the source of additional wealth, where the legitimate origin of such assets cannot be established and the assets are suspected of being linked to criminal assets.

Therefore, the greatest legal risk of asset forfeiture when the perpetrator has not been or cannot be criminally convicted is the potential for criminalization. According to Yoshua, if criminal proceedings are based on a presumption of guilt, the objective is no longer to seek the truth but to establish wrongdoing.

“Ultimately, the person has to be considered guilty because the perspective is that the person is already at fault. This creates a dilemma in handling cases, particularly criminal cases. I understand the urgency of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, but in my view, that urgency should not come at the expense of due legal processes,” Yoshua explained.

Yoshua said he would prefer the bill to use the term seizure rather than forfeiture. That way, if the person concerned can prove that their assets were obtained lawfully, the seizure status could be lifted and the assets returned.

Furthermore, Yoshua sees no issue with the reverse burden of proof mechanism, as it is already recognized in corruption and money laundering cases, while still adhering to the principle of due process of law.

The draft also states that anyone who believes their rights have been adversely affected by an application for asset forfeiture may file an objection, arguing that the assets in question are not proceeds of crime.

According to Yoshua, however, this right is not sufficient. He said the bill should still incorporate the principle of due process of law, which requires legal proceedings to be conducted without arbitrary actions.

“Because the bill uses the in rem concept, assets could be directly forfeited. I believe that if, during the judicial process, the suspect or defendant can prove that their assets were lawfully acquired, then what happens to those assets? Yes, the bill contains provisions on asset management, but what would the implementation look like? If the assets are damaged and/or depreciate during the management period, who would be responsible for that loss? This is a major question that must be addressed in the Asset Forfeiture Bill,” he concluded.

Contents of the Asset Forfeiture Bill Draft

Article 5 of the Asset Forfeiture Bill stipulates that assets subject to forfeiture include:

• Proceeds of crime or assets obtained directly or indirectly from criminal offenses, including assets that have been gifted or converted into personal assets, assets belonging to other individuals, or corporate assets, whether in the form of capital, income, or other economic benefits derived from such assets.
• Assets known or reasonably suspected to have been used or previously used to commit a criminal offense.
• Other legitimate assets owned by the perpetrator that may serve as substitutes for assets that have been declared forfeited by the state.
• Found property known or reasonably suspected to have originated from criminal offenses.

In addition to the assets listed above, other assets that may be subject to forfeiture include:

• Assets that are disproportionate to a person’s income or to the source of additional wealth, where the legitimate origin of such assets cannot be established and the assets are suspected to be linked to criminal assets acquired after the law comes into force.
• Seized assets obtained from the proceeds of crime or used to commit a criminal offense.

Assets subject to forfeiture must have a value of at least Rp100 million and be related to a criminal offense punishable by four years’ imprisonment or more.

Asset forfeiture may be carried out if the suspect or defendant has died, fled, suffered a permanent illness, or whose whereabouts are unknown, as well as if the defendant has been released from all charges.

Asset forfeiture may also be carried out when the criminal case cannot proceed to trial, or when the defendant has been found guilty by a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force, but assets related to the criminal offense are subsequently discovered that were not previously declared forfeited.