Asset forfeiture bill must pursue criminal proceeds while protecting citizens’ rights

Indonesia’s proposed Asset Forfeiture Bill faces a central test: how to give the state stronger tools to recover criminal proceeds without allowing the seizure of lawfully acquired property.

The issue emerged during a hearing of Commission III of the House of Representatives on September 7, 2026. Peradi Profesional said efforts to combat crime and return illicit assets must operate within the rule of law, legal certainty, human rights protections and due process.

Its chairman, Arthur Hedar, said the question was not simply how broad the state’s powers should be. It was also how to prevent those powers from becoming excessive or being abused by law-enforcement officials. “The state must be strong in confronting criminals, but the state must also be strong in protecting its people,” he said. “The drive to seize criminal assets must not open the way to the seizure of lawfully acquired property.”

Peradi Profesional urged lawmakers to place clear limits on forfeiture mechanisms, especially those that do not depend on a criminal conviction against an individual. It called for strong judicial oversight and concrete guarantees for the presumption of innocence, lawful ownership, the right to mount a defence, the rights of good-faith third parties, and procedures for objections and restitution.

The group also raised concerns about the burden of proof. A person should not be treated as effectively guilty merely because they cannot explain the origin of their assets, it said. Authorities still need a legal basis, preliminary evidence and an accountable connection between the property and a criminal offence. Drawing lessons from major cases, including one involving the tin trade, Peradi Profesional warned that the bill should not adopt a “seize first, then let the owner prove the property is lawful” approach, which it said could undermine fundamental rule-of-law principles and enable arbitrary action.

“

The state must be strong in confronting criminals, but the state must also be strong in protecting its people. The drive to seize criminal assets must not open the way to the seizure of lawfully acquired property.