Indonesian lawmaker proposes new asset forfeiture review mechanism

Nasyirul Falah Amru, a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives' Commission III, has proposed a new legal framework for asset forfeiture, suggesting it should not be governed by the current pre-trial review (praperadilan) system under the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

Amru, often referred to as Gus Falah, advocates for developing a specific "pra judicial" mechanism within the upcoming Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture (RUU PA). This proposed system would allow for the legal testing of asset seizure or confiscation actions before the main trial commences. He believes this is crucial for ensuring that all asset forfeiture actions by law enforcement are subject to legal scrutiny, assessing both formal and material aspects.

“

The testing of the asset forfeiture process, both formal and material, is indeed necessary to answer the goals of law, justice, certainty, and the protection of human rights as stipulated in our constitution, Article 28G Paragraph (1) and Article 28H Paragraph (4) concerning the right to private property and assets in the 1945 Constitution.

"The testing of the asset forfeiture process, both formal and material, is indeed necessary to answer the goals of law, justice, certainty, and the protection of human rights as stipulated in our constitution, Article 28G Paragraph (1) and Article 28H Paragraph (4) concerning the right to private property and assets in the 1945 Constitution," Gus Falah stated.

“

Regarding the testing process of actions by officials conducting confiscation, the term I am trying to convey is not praperadilan but pra judicial. On several occasions in RDPs related to the discussion process of the RUU PA, I suggested that this draft law will later have its own special procedural law and be lex specialist to existing regulations. This means that matters not regulated in the new KUHAP will follow the procedural law regulated in this draft law.

The legislator from the PDI-Perjuangan faction suggests that this mechanism should be integrated into the special procedural law within the RUU PA. This would make it a "lex specialist" provision, meaning it would take precedence over the general KUHAP where specific regulations are not covered. This approach aims to provide a clear legal pathway for challenging asset seizures while upholding constitutional rights to property.

Amru emphasized that this new mechanism must not create loopholes for abuse or delay law enforcement processes. Therefore, the formal and material requirements for initiating such a review must be strictly formulated, along with clear deadlines for case resolution. He also raised the question of whether the decisions made under this mechanism should be final and binding or if further appeals to the Supreme Court should be permitted.

“

The formal and material requirements must be strict and have a case resolution deadline. Whether the decision is final and binding or if there is another concept with legal remedies in the form of a final examination at the Supreme Court.