House Commission III: Asset-forfeiture law should cover more than corruption

Indonesia’s proposed asset-forfeiture law should reach beyond corruption, according to Habiburokhman, chairman of House Commission III. He said crimes that harm the state and the public should also fall within its scope.

Habiburokhman pointed to the United States, Britain and Australia as examples. He said U.S. civil-forfeiture rules can target proceeds from drug crimes, money laundering, smuggling and securities-market manipulation. Britain’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, supported by Unexplained Wealth Orders, covers serious crime, tax evasion and organised fraud without requiring a criminal conviction first. Australia’s law reaches organised crime, illegal drug distribution, customs offenses and major financial crimes.

“

In other countries, the scope of asset-forfeiture laws is not limited to corruption. Several other crimes also substantially harm the state and the public.

He said Commission III had received calls to include narcotics, terrorism, investment fraud, environmental crimes, taxation and insurance offenses in a non-conviction-based forfeiture regime. Asset seizure could disrupt financing and logistics for drug networks and terrorist groups, he said, while helping recover money in investment and insurance fraud cases where perpetrators hide or transfer their assets.

Habiburokhman described the principle behind the bill as “crime does not pay”. He also said agencies enforcing the law must have integrity, remain free of corruption and avoid using asset-forfeiture powers to criminalise people. Commission III, he said, wants the bill to provide a complete, progressive and proportionate legal framework for recovering losses suffered by the state and the public.

“

crime does not pay