Expert on the Value of the Asset Confiscation Bill Must Explicitly Prevent Political Abuse

Screenshot - Public policy expert Bambang Harymurti speaks in the RDPU regarding the Asset Confiscation Bill in Commission III of the DPR/ANTARA/YouTube/TVR Parliament

JAKARTA - Public Expert Bambang Harymurti assessed that the Asset Confiscation Bill must explicitly prevent political abuse. He emphasized that the authority to confiscate assets should not be left solely to the good intentions of the current officials in power.

"The bill must explicitly prohibit the use of asset expropriation authority to silence political opponents," Bambang said at the public hearing (RDPU) of Commission III of the DPR regarding the Asset Expropriation Bill at the DPR building, Jakarta, Tuesday, August 11.

Bambang also emphasized that the umbrella of law related to the confiscation of assets should not give room for intimidating journalists or civil society. Moreover, according to him, it is used to resolve personal 'disputes'.

In front of members of Commission III of the DPR, Bambang said the Asset Confiscation Bill should not be a tool to punish legitimate political activities, pressure companies for political reasons, or target someone selectively without objective legal criteria.

"This is not paranoia. The power to seize assets is one of the greatest forms of state power against citizens," he said.

Bambang said, in principle, the best protection is not the promise of today's officials to act properly. The best protection is to build a legal structure that makes abuse difficult to do.

He also reminded that the management of assets must be independent of investigations and prosecutions. According to him, the confiscation of assets without clear rules will have a negative impact on law enforcement and the survival of society, such as confiscated companies can go bankrupt.

"Then, factories can lose customers. Machines can depreciate. Properties can be damaged. Shares can lose value," he said.

Therefore, Bambang assessed, an independent asset management institution was needed. The asset management institution must have professional asset managers, forensic accountants, asset valuation experts, legal experts, economists, transparent procurement processes, and independent audits.

"All the results of asset management and sales must be entered into a special account that can be audited. In principle, the institution that investigates an asset should not be the same institution that manages or sells the asset," he said.

In addition, Bambang also encourages that the bill currently being discussed will regulate the consequences for the state if it makes a mistake in seizing someone's assets. The Asset Seizure Bill, he said, must provide several 'punishments' for the government if the court finally declares that the state has seized assets illegally. One of them, the return of assets as soon as possible if it is still possible.

Then, he continued, the state is obliged to provide restitution to the victim. Next, compensation for proven losses. Finally, the responsibility of officials if there is abuse of authority or negligence.

"Without consequences for wrongful expropriation, the state power will not have adequate control," explained Bambang.