FHUI Board of Professors Outlines 13 Critical Notes on the Asset Forfeiture Bill
Baca dalam 60 detik
- Dewan Guru Besar FHUI menyampaikan 13 catatan kritis terhadap RUU Perampasan Aset, menekankan pentingnya keseimbangan antara kewenangan negara dan perlindungan hak warga.
- Mekanisme perampasan aset tanpa putusan pidana dinilai relevan untuk kasus pelaku melarikan diri atau meninggal, namun harus dibatasi secara ketat dan terukur.
- Pagar pengaman seperti pengawasan yudisial, perlindungan pihak ketiga, dan transparansi tata kelola aset menjadi syarat mutlak agar RUU tidak disalahgunakan.
The Board of Professors of the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia (FHUI) highlighted the Asset Forfeiture Bill with 13 critical notes presented at the Professors' Insights forum in Depok on Thursday (24/9). The notes emerged amid the government's push to immediately pass the regulation, which is considered crucial for recovering state losses from economic crimes.
FHUI Professor Harkristuti Harkrisnowo stressed that law enforcement must not stop at punishing offenders. "Law enforcement must not stop at punishing offenders, but must also ensure that the proceeds of crime are not enjoyed by the offenders or any other party," she said. The statement underscores a shift in orientation from merely punishing people to efforts to recover assets.
In her presentation, Harkristuti explained that the bill brings a paradigm shift from an in personam approach (person-oriented) to in rem (asset-oriented) through a non-conviction based forfeiture mechanism. This mechanism allows asset forfeiture without a criminal verdict, especially when legal proceedings are hampered because the suspect has died, fled, suffers permanent illness, or the case cannot be brought to trial. However, she warned that the mechanism must not become a shortcut to avoid criminal proceedings and must be used in a limited and measured way.
The fourth note highlights the extent of state authority in seizing assets, which directly intersects with citizens' constitutional rights. Therefore, the bill must be built on the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty, proportionality, due process of law, and human rights protection. Harkristuti also stressed the need for strong safeguards, such as limits on the use of the mechanism, clear rules on evidence, protection of third parties acting in good faith, and effective court control.
On the reversal of the burden of proof, she reminded that its formulation must be very careful. The state must still have an adequate initial basis to show the link between assets and a criminal offense. "No one should lose the right to their property because of something else they did not know about," she said. Third parties must be given the opportunity to defend their rights and obtain remedy if state action is proven wrong.
"The greater the authority given to the state, the stronger the oversight mechanism must be," Harkristuti added.
Judicial oversight is the eighth point and is inseparable. Every state action that restricts a person's rights must be reviewable by an independent court. In addition, the governance of seized and forfeited assets must be transparent and accountable. The concentration of authority in one institution—from seizure, storage, management, to sale—needs to be balanced with strict oversight to prevent conflicts of interest.
The sale of assets before a court ruling must also be carried out very carefully. There must be a clear mechanism if the court later rules that the asset cannot be forfeited. In this context, protection of rights and court control are crucial. Harkristuti also highlighted the importance of international cooperation because economic crimes are often cross-border, with assets moved or hidden in other jurisdictions.
She added that Indonesia does not need to copy models from other countries wholesale. Every mechanism must be adapted to Indonesia's constitution, legal system, institutional structure, and social conditions. In her final note, she stressed that the effectiveness of law enforcement and human rights protection must not be set against each other. "Assets that truly come from criminal offenses should indeed not continue to be enjoyed by the offenders," she explained, but the state must still act based on law, accountable evidence, a fair process, and effective oversight.
The forum was also attended by other professors such as Hikmahanto Juwana and Topo Santoso. Their presence indicates that these notes are not merely individual views, but a collective stance of leading legal academics.
For Indonesia, the Asset Forfeiture Bill is a test of the commitment to combating corruption and economic crimes. If passed without adequate safeguards, the risk of abuse of authority and criminalization could emerge. Conversely, without this legal breakthrough, assets from crime could continue to be enjoyed by offenders. The question is, will the DPR and the government accommodate these 13 notes before making a decision?
