Indonesia’s Draft Asset Forfeiture Law Sparks Legal Debate Over Due Process

Legal experts warn that Indonesia’s proposed Asset Forfeiture model (NCB) lacks a statutory basis until the draft law is enacted. Chuck Suryosumpeno, head of the Prosecutor‑General’s Asset Recovery Center, said investigators cannot seize assets without clear legal status of ownership, stressing that “true asset recovery is measured by the ability to defend the seizure in court.”

Members of the DPR’s third commission, including Chair Habiburokhman, emphasized the need for strong oversight to prevent abuse of power, noting that the law must protect citizens and ensure seized assets are managed effectively rather than becoming a burden. Criminal law scholar Septa Candra argued the draft’s title should shift from “Asset Seizure” to “Asset Recovery” to reflect its broader investigative and freezing functions, aligning with Indonesia’s UNCAC commitments.

Recent high‑profile seizures, such as the de'CLAN Signature café and a house in Sentul, Bogor, have been cited as examples of premature action lacking proper evidentiary links to criminal proceeds. Observers call for a clear burden of proof on investigators and transparent procedures before assets are confiscated.