Urgency of the Criminal Asset Forfeiture Bill: A Comparative Analysis with the Asset Recovery Approach
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Criminal Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU PA) represents a paradigm shift in Indonesia’s approach to combatting economic crime by enabling non-conviction-based asset seizure through in rem proceedings. Traditional conviction-based mechanisms under the Indonesian Penal Code and Anti-Money Laundering Law have failed to recover more than 7.8% of state losses from corruption, undermining public trust and fiscal capacity. By comparing the U.S. civil forfeiture framework, the U.K. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and Singapore’s CDSA regime, this study identifies the legal standards, procedural safeguards, and institutional designs that maximize asset recovery while protecting fundamental rights. Key findings highlight the necessity of clear evidentiary thresholds, third-party protections, and judicial oversight to prevent abuse of power. Recommendations include harmonizing RUU PA with existing criminal procedure codes, establishing an independent asset management agency, and incorporating meaningful public participation. These reforms aim to strengthen Indonesia’s legal infrastructure, enhance state revenue recovery, and deter high-level corruption.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
[1] H. A. Ilma, “Tantangan Mekanisme Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture dalam Rancangan Undang-Undang Perampasan Aset di Indonesia,” Ma’mal J. Lab. Syariah dan Huk., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 321–344, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.15642/mal.v5i4.373.
[2] W. M. C. Nababan, “RUU Perampasan Aset Tak Kunjung Dibahas, Negara Kehilangan Triliunan Tiap Tahun,” Kompas. [Online]. Available: https://www.kompas.id/artikel/ruu-perampasan-aset-tak-kunjung-dibahas-negara-berpotensi-kehilangan-triliunan-tiap-tahun?status=sukses_login&utm_source=kompasid&utm_medium=login_paywall&utm_campaign=login&utm_content=https://www.kompas.id/artikel/ruu-peram
[3] G. D. Gustati, “RUU Perampasan Aset yang Lamban Diproses,” UMS Berita. [Online]. Available: https://www.ums.ac.id/berita/teropong-jagat/ruu-perampasan-aset-yang-lamban-diproses
[4] M. G. Reza, “Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Perampasan Aset ‘Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture’ Dalam Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang,” Wacana Paramarta J. Ilmu Huk., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 57–71, 2024, doi: 10.32816/paramarta.v23i1.556.
[5] J. Hendry and C. King, “How far is too far? Theorising non-conviction-based asset forfeiture,” Int. J. Law Context, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 398–411, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1017/S1744552315000269.
[6] M. N. Huda, S. I. Mardhatillah, Q. Ayunisa, A. Munjiyah, and A. E. Nugroho, “Non-Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture: Presumption of Innocence and Principle of Legality Perspective,” Walisongo Law Rev., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 98–112, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.21580/walrev.2025.7.1.28205.
[7] L. S. Mukminah, H. Hartiwiningsih, O. Yudianto, and H. Hufron, “The Importance Of Regulating Non-Concivtion Based Forfeiture In Corruption Cases In Indonesia,” IBLAM LAW Rev., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 31–45, May 2023, doi: 10.52249/ilr.v3i2.125.
[8] M. F. Azwar, M. S. Karim, and Haeranah, “The Concept of Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture As a Legal Policy in Assets Criminal Action of Corruption,” Leg. Br., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 2613–2622, 2022, doi: 10.35335/legal.v11i5.515.
[9] P. T. Septiana and W. Afifah, “Civil Forfeiture Sebagai Upaya Pengembalian Kerugian Negara Pada Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” Bur. J. Indones. J. Law Soc. Gov., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 612–623, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.53363/bureau.v2i3.52.
[10] S. D. Cassella, “An Overview of Asset Forfeiture in the United States,” in Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. doi: 10.4337/9781848446212.00013.
[11] U.S. Department of Justice, “2022 Fact Sheet Asset Forfeiture,” U.S. Department of Justice. [Online]. Available: https://www.usmarshals.gov/what-we-do/asset-forfeiture/fact-sheet
[12] U.S. Department of Justice, “Asset Forfeiture,” U.S. Department of Justice. [Online]. Available: http://usmarshals.gov/what-we-do/asset-forfeiture
[13] A. V. M. Leong, “Assets Recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: The UK Experience,” in Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009. doi: 10.4337/9781848446212.00018.
[14] Government UK, “Official Statistics Asset recovery statistics: financial years ending 2020 to 2025,” Government UK. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/asset-recovery-statistics-financial-years-ending-2020-to-2025/asset-recovery-statistics-financial-years-ending-2020-to-2025
[15] T. Sin Liang, “Singapore: New Money‐Laundering Law under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act,” J. Money Laund. Control, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 260–265, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1108/eb027238.
[16] A. Wong, “Asset recovery a priority in Singapore’s anti-money laundering regime: PM Wong,” Straits Times. [Online]. Available: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/yishun-knife-attack-neighbour-who-allegedly-fatally-assaulted-mother-of-2-charged-with-murder
[17] Central Narcotics Bureau, “Seizure and Confiscation of Ill-Gotten Proceeds from Drug Trafficking,” Central Narcotics Bureau. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnb.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/News/Index/seizure-and-confiscation-of-ill-gotten-proceeds-from-drug-trafficking