Expert: Asset Confiscation Cannot Be Done Without Independent Court Decision

DOK BETWEEN

JAKARTA - Public Expert Bambang Harymurti emphasized that the seizure of assets should not be carried out by law enforcement officials without an independent court decision. The Asset Seizure Bill must clearly regulate the difference between temporary seizure/freezing and permanent seizure.

This was conveyed by Bambang at the public hearing (RDPU) of Commission III of the DPR regarding the Asset Confiscation Bill at the DPR building, Senayan, Jakarta, Tuesday, August 11.

Bambang said that the limit of the difference between seizure and permanent expropriation was important to regulate so that the Expropriation Bill would not later become a tool of injustice, corruption, or political intimidation.

"The law must clearly distinguish between temporary seizure/freezing and permanent confiscation," Bambang said at a meeting at the DPR building, Jakarta, Tuesday, August 11.

According to Bambang, the state can freeze an asset quickly so that the asset is not sold or transferred while awaiting a court decision. He reminded that investigators, prosecutors, police, and other administrative agencies should not have the final authority to determine that a citizen loses the right to his property.

In front of members of Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives, Bambang also said that the state must bear the burden of initial and final proof. One of them, the owner of the asset should not be required to prove his innocence just because the investigator considers his wealth "suspicious".

"The state must first prove with valid evidence, first what assets are the object; second, what criminal acts or unlawful acts are alleged; third, when the act occurred; and fourth, the factual relationship between the assets and the unlawful acts," he said.

"Only after the threshold of proof is met, the owner can be asked to explain the legitimate origin of certain assets," he added.

Equally important, said Bambang, the state should not consider assets that cannot be explained by the owner as the result of a crime. He gave an example of this case, such as errors in tax reporting and LHKPN inaccuracies.

For this reason, Bambang emphasized that the confiscation of assets without a criminal conviction could be justified by several notes. Such as, the suspect who died.

Then, the suspect was known to have fled the ongoing legal process. Finally, the perpetrator cannot be brought to court for certain reasons that are expressly determined by law.

"However, these circumstances must be clear and limited categories, not formulations that give too broad a room for discretion," he said.