Indonesia’s House of Representatives Pledges to Pass the Asset Forfeiture Bill: A Serious Commitment or a Means of Defusing Public Disappointment?

The wave of demonstrations held on 27 August 2026 once again placed the Asset Forfeiture Bill (Rancangan Undang-Undang Perampasan Aset) at the forefront of public attention. The Pati United Community Alliance (Aliansi Masyarakat Pati Bersatu or AMPB) staged a demonstration in front of the Indonesian House of Representatives/People’s Consultative Assembly Building in Jakarta, with one of its principal demands being that the House of Representatives (DPR) promptly enact the Asset Forfeiture Bill. This was reported by ANTARA, which covered both the mass demonstration and the DPR’s commitment to complete the legislative process for the Bill.

Why Is the Public Calling for Its Enactment?

The urgency of enacting the Asset Forfeiture Bill is grounded in the need for a new paradigm in the enforcement of economic crime and corruption laws in Indonesia. A number of studies and official documents indicate that the existing legal mechanisms still face limitations in tracing, forfeiting, and recovering assets derived from criminal offences:

1. A Shift in the Law Enforcement Paradigm (Follow the Money): Conventional criminal enforcement, which has thus far focused on punishing offenders or following the suspect, is considered insufficiently effective unless accompanied by efforts to trace, seize, and forfeit the proceeds of crime. According to the National Law Development Agency (Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional or BPHN), a legal system that focuses solely on uncovering criminal offences and punishing offenders is not sufficiently effective in suppressing crime unless it is accompanied by the seizure and forfeiture of the proceeds and instrumentalities of criminal offences. Accordingly, the follow the money approach, or the tracing of financial flows, is regarded as important to ensure that offenders do not continue to enjoy the proceeds of their crimes and to provide the State with more effective instruments for asset recovery.

2. The Non-Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture (NCBF) Mechanism: The Asset Forfeiture Bill is designed to introduce an asset forfeiture mechanism that does not always depend on a criminal conviction of the offender, known as Non-Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture (NCBF). According to the Academic Paper on the Asset Forfeiture Bill in Relation to Criminal Offences, harmonized by the National Law Development Agency (BPHN), the development of this legislation is based on the need for a more effective mechanism for forfeiting assets derived from criminal offences. One of its regulatory directions is the development of an asset forfeiture mechanism that does not depend solely on the punishment of the offender, including through an in rem or Non-Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture (NCBF) approach. 

As reported by E-Media DPR RI, the NCB mechanism is also one of the key substantive matters in the deliberations on the Bill and is considered relevant for pursuing assets derived from criminal offences under certain circumstances, such as where the offender has died, fled, or cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings. Meanwhile, the approach to assets whose value is disproportionate to lawful sources of income, or unexplained wealth, also forms part of the academic study concerning the strengthening of asset forfeiture mechanisms and the evidentiary process relating to the origin of property.

3. Optimizing the Recovery of State Assets (Asset Recovery): One of the principal reasons for the importance of the Asset Forfeiture Bill is to strengthen the asset recovery system for assets derived from criminal offences. As reported by E-Media DPR RI, the deliberations on the Bill are still seeking to formulate a system capable of strengthening, in a more integrated manner, the mechanisms for tracing, freezing, seizure, forfeiture, management, and recovery of assets. According to the Ministry of Law, asset forfeiture practices in Indonesia have thus far generally continued to rely on conviction-based asset forfeiture, namely forfeiture based on a final and binding court judgment. This condition constitutes one of the reasons for the need for a more comprehensive legal instrument to strengthen asset recovery, particularly in addressing increasingly complex economic crimes and corruption.

Substance and Several Crucial Issues in the Deliberation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill

Although public pressure is extremely strong, the deliberation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill at the legislative level remains marked by a number of crucial issues. Based on various discussions within Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives, these issues include the non-conviction-based asset forfeiture (NCB) mechanism, standards of proof, protection of third parties, governance of forfeited assets, and the prevention of abuse of authority. These various substantive matters continue to be examined by the DPR and the Government in preparation for legislation capable of strengthening asset recovery while at the same time ensuring the protection of the public’s rights, as reported by E-Media DPR RI.

• Criteria and Categories of Assets Subject to Forfeiture: One issue requiring further clarification concerns the parameters of assets that may be subject to forfeiture and the applicable standards of proof. In the deliberations of Commission III, the DPR emphasized that the State must not take over a person’s assets solely on the basis of suspicion. Reverse burden of proof must be preceded by a clear threshold of prima facie evidence before the owner or person exercising control over the assets is required to explain the origin of the wealth. In addition, the DPR highlighted the need to distinguish between assets genuinely connected to criminal offences and property lawfully belonging to other parties.

• Application of the NCBF Scheme and Due Process of Law: The non-conviction-based asset forfeiture (NCB) mechanism constitutes one of the key substantive matters because it permits the forfeiture of assets under certain circumstances without a prior criminal conviction of the offender. The implementation of NCB must nevertheless be accompanied by judicial oversight, objection mechanisms, and protection for third parties who lawfully and in good faith acquire or possess the assets. Previously, as reported by the Legal Documentation and Information Network of the Secretariat General of the DPR RI on 13 July 2026, Bimantoro Wiyono, a Member of Commission III of the DPR RI, emphasized that the Asset Forfeiture Bill must guarantee due process of law, the principle of proportionality, and the prevention of abuse of power by law enforcement officials.

• Protection of Good-Faith Third Parties: The protection of third parties is a matter of concern because not every person who formally possesses or owns an asset is involved in a criminal offence. According to E-Media DPR RI on 20 April 2026, Mercy Chriesty Barends, a Member of Commission III of the DPR RI, emphasized the need for legal protection for third parties who neither knew of nor were involved in the criminal offence. She also urged that the Bill regulate in detail the definition of third parties, standards of proof, and fair procedures in legal proceedings.

• Governance and Institutional Management of Assets: The regulation concerns not only the forfeiture process but also the manner in which assets that have been seized or forfeited are managed transparently and accountably. Benny K. Harman, a Member of Commission III of the DPR RI, highlighted weaknesses in the governance of assets seized and forfeited by the State and proposed the establishment of a special body to manage the proceeds of asset forfeiture.

• Harmonization and Evidentiary Mechanisms: The evidentiary mechanism constitutes one of the key issues because the Bill must ensure that the State’s authority to pursue assets remains grounded in law and subject to clear standards of proof. According to E-Media DPR RI on 25 August 2026, the deliberations on reverse burden of proof are directed at ensuring that the State cannot take over a person’s assets solely on the basis of suspicion and that a threshold of prima facie evidence must exist before the burden of explaining the origin of the assets is imposed on the owner or person exercising control over them.

• Prevention of Abuse of Power: The strengthening of the State’s authority to forfeit assets must be balanced by oversight mechanisms to ensure that such authority does not become an instrument of abuse of power. As reported by the Legal Documentation and Information Network of the Secretariat General of the DPR RI on 13 July 2026, Bimantoro Wiyono, a Member of Commission III of the DPR RI, emphasized that the deliberation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill must strengthen asset recovery without disregarding due process of law, the principle of proportionality, and the prevention of abuse of power by law enforcement officials.

(Source: JDIH Setjen DPR RI, E-Media DPR RI)

Why Has It Not Yet Been Enacted? The Tension Between Urgency, Legal Certainty, and Power

Habiburokhman, Chair of Commission III of the DPR RI, stated that the deliberation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill had involved 35 public hearings, three regional working visits, and approximately 50 resource persons. However, he also acknowledged that only approximately eight weeks of effective sitting time remained to complete several stages, ranging from the gathering of public input, harmonization, and deliberation of the Problem Inventory List (Daftar Inventarisasi Masalah or DIM), to first- and second-level deliberations, as reported by E-Media DPR RI on 25 August 2026. This situation raises the question: will the acceleration target produce a well-developed law, or will it instead compel the lawmakers to work under the pressure of political deadlines?

• The perspective of public urgency and law enforcement: The pressure to enact the Bill promptly has a strong basis. As reported by ANTARA on 20 January 2026, Sari Yuliati, Deputy Chair of Commission III of the DPR RI, stated that the Asset Forfeiture Bill is necessary to strengthen law enforcement and ensure that assets derived from criminal offences can be forfeited through accountable mechanisms. She emphasized that the objective of the Bill does not end with the punishment of offenders but also encompasses asset recovery, or the recovery of assets for the benefit of the public.

That pressure became even more apparent when the Pati United Community Alliance (AMPB), during its demonstration in front of the Indonesian House of Representatives/People’s Consultative Assembly Building, specifically called for the accelerated completion of the Asset Forfeiture Bill on 27 August 2026.

• The perspective of legal certainty and protection of rights: Bimantoro Wiyono, a Member of Commission III of the DPR RI, emphasized that the Bill must strengthen asset recovery without disregarding due process of law, the principle of proportionality, and the prevention of abuse of power, as reported by the Legal Documentation and Information Network of the Secretariat General of the DPR RI on 13 July 2026. A similar view was expressed by members of the legal profession. According to ANTARA on 3 August 2026, Maqdir Ismail, Chairperson of the Indonesian Advocates Association (Ikadin), requested that the Bill provide clear standards of proof concerning the nexus between assets and criminal offences. In his view, seizure and forfeiture cannot be based merely on suspicion but must be supported by an adequate legal basis and analysis concerning the relationship between the relevant assets and the criminal offence. These two views demonstrate that the strengthening of the State’s authority to pursue assets derived from criminal activity must nevertheless be accompanied by clear legal limitations to ensure that the forfeiture process does not disregard the rights of owners or parties having an interest in such assets.

• The 15 December 2026 Deadline: The commitment to complete the Asset Forfeiture Bill now has a clear deadline. ANTARA reported on 27 August 2026 that Sufmi Dasco Ahmad, Deputy Speaker of the DPR, stated that the DPR leadership was prepared to resign if the Bill was not enacted by no later than 15 December 2026. The statement was made after the DPR leadership received the delegation and demands of the Pati United Community Alliance (AMPB). 

The commitment has drawn attention from Bawono Kumoro, a researcher at Indikator Politik Indonesia. Bawono considered that the position taken by the DPR leadership demonstrated the existence of political will to complete the Asset Forfeiture Bill. Accordingly, the 15 December deadline is not merely a target for completing the deliberations, but also a measure of the DPR’s consistency in realizing the commitment it has made to the public. At the same time, the achievement of that target must continue to be assessed in conjunction with the substantive quality of the Bill, particularly in relation to the asset recovery mechanism, the protection of rights, and limitations on authority in the asset forfeiture process.

The deadline of 15 December 2026 should not be treated as a race to reach the date of enactment. The real challenge is to demonstrate that the DPR and the Government are capable of producing legislation that is sufficiently robust to pursue assets derived from criminal offences, while being sufficiently stringent to prevent arbitrary forfeiture. If the Bill is pursued merely to fulfill a political promise, the issue it is intended to resolve risks instead giving rise to a new issue: how to ensure that the State’s extensive powers remain subject to the rule of law.