IMC Dorong Regulasi Jelas untuk Batas Perampasan Aset Kekayaan Tak Wajar di Indonesia

By Jurnalis Berita

🌍 Translate this article:

Thecuy.com – Indonesia Millennials Center (IMC) underlines the necessity for clear and careful rules within the Draft Asset Forfeiture Bill, particularly concerning illicit enrichment. IMC stresses that wealth that does not align with an owner’s income cannot automatically be treated as criminal proceeds and seized by the state without a fair and transparent process.

Need for Measured and Fair Regulation

During a Public Hearing with Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives on 23 September 2026, IMC Executive Director Yerikho Alfredo Manurung cautioned that the Asset Forfeiture Bill should spell out detailed limits and mechanisms for handling irregular assets. He stated that asset confiscation must rest on solid evidence and follow legal proceedings that uphold the presumption of innocence and human rights.

According to Yerikho, two crucial stages exist in tackling illicit wealth. The first stage involves spotting objective early indicators—such as mismatches between assets and income, the use of nominees, and suspicious transaction patterns. However, the presence of these early signs should not automatically justify seizing assets without giving the owner a chance to prove the wealth’s origin.

Case Examples and Implementation Challenges

IMC illustrated the case of an official who amassed considerable wealth through inheritance before assuming office, which could not instantly be presumed to stem from corrupt practices. Yerikho emphasized the importance of drawing a clear line between assets owned prior to taking office and enrichment occurring during the tenure.

Another challenge is Indonesia’s still traditional wealth registration system, where many cash transactions go unrecorded, complicating oversight. Additionally, the risk of authority abuse by law‑enforcement officers is a serious concern when drafting effective and equitable regulations.

Proof Standards and Rights Protection

IMC proposes that the Asset Forfeiture Bill establish distinct proof standards for the stages of freezing, seizure, and final confiscation. The non‑conviction based asset forfeiture mechanism (NCB) could be regulated but must include strict controls and safeguards for bona fide third parties.

Interested parties must receive notification and an opportunity to contest. If confiscation is overturned in court, the right to restitution or compensation should be explicitly laid out in law.

Regulation of Illicit Enrichment within Material Criminal Law Framework

IMC stresses that the regulation of illicit enrichment should be framed within substantive criminal law so that elements of criminal offenses, liability, proof standards, and the limits of officials’ authority can be clearly and measurably defined. This is essential to maintain legal fairness while maximizing anti‑corruption efforts and addressing crimes linked to irregular assets.

Consequently, a comprehensive and focused Asset Forfeiture Bill is expected to serve as an effective tool for governing the seizure of assets derived from criminal acts, while safeguarding citizens’ rights and upholding the principle of justice.

Baca juga Berita lainnya di News Page

Terimakasih sudah mengunjungi thecuy. 🙂

Tinggalkan Balasan