Expert proposes 10 "protective fences" for public property in the Asset Confiscation Bill

Public policy expert Bambang Harymurti speaks during a public hearing on the Asset Confiscation Bill held by Commission III of the DPR at the DPR Building, Jakarta, Tuesday (11/8/2026). (TVR Parliament)

JAKARTA - Public policy expert Bambang Harymurti proposed 10 "protective fences" for people's property to be regulated in the Draft Law (RUU) on Asset Confiscation being drafted by the DPR.

According to him, these ten principles must be accommodated so that the authority of law enforcement to seize assets from criminal acts does not turn into a tool of injustice, political intimidation or a new corruption tool.

"The first law is that the permanent confiscation of assets must be decided by an independent court. This is important," he said at a public hearing held at the DPR Commission III in Jakarta, Tuesday.

Bambang emphasized that there should be no permanent expropriation without an independent court decision. In this case, the Law must clearly distinguish between temporary expropriation and permanent expropriation.

He admitted that the state could freeze assets quickly so that they are not sold or transferred. However, investigators, prosecutors, police, and administrative agencies should not have the final authority to determine whether someone loses the right to his property.

"The decision must be in the hands of an independent court after a process that allows the parties affected by the state's actions to defend themselves fully," he said.

The second principle, said Bambang, the state still bears the burden of proof. Asset owners should not be required to prove their innocence just because investigators consider their wealth suspicious.

According to him, the state must first prove it with valid evidence, which includes assets that are the object, the alleged crime, the time and place of the illegal act, and the factual relationship between assets.

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

Third, the seizure without a court decision must be limited to extraordinary circumstances. The extraordinary provision must be formulated in writing and closed so as not to give rise to multiple interpretations.

Fourth, unexplained wealth cannot automatically be considered as assets of crime. According to him, the difference in wealth sources must be explicitly stated in the Law.

Fifth, good-intentioned third parties must be given firm protection. The principle, he said, is that a person's relationship with a suspect does not automatically make the person's property an asset of a crime.

Sixth, the common property of husband and wife requires special protection. If the husband is accused of corruption or otherwise, the government should not automatically consider the legitimate share of the wife or husband in the common property as an asset of a crime.

Seventh, Bambang emphasized that there must be a clear time relationship between the criminal act and the asset. In this context, the state must not have unlimited authority to investigate the entire financial history of a person just because there is a suspicion of a criminal act.

"This does not mean that old assets can never be confiscated. It means that the relationship must be proven," he said.

Eighth, asset management must be independent from the investigation stage to prosecution. He also proposed the establishment of an independent asset management agency because, according to him, the state must maintain the value of seized assets.

"The asset management institution must have professional asset managers, forensic accountants, asset valuation experts, legal experts, economists, transparent procurement processes, independent audits," said Bambang.

Ninth, wrongful expropriation must have consequences for the state. The law must provide for mechanisms for compensation, such as the return of assets, restitution, compensation, and the accountability of officials.

Tenth, the law must explicitly prevent political abuse.

He said it needed to be emphasized that the use of expropriation authority to silence political opponents, intimidate journalists or civil society, resolve personal disputes, punish legitimate political activities, pressure companies for political reasons or target someone without objective legal criteria.

"The power to seize assets is one of the forms of state power that has the greatest influence on citizens. The best protection is to build a legal structure that makes abuse difficult to do," said Bambang.