Reach and Weaknesses of Asset Forfeiture Policy in Corruption Crimes in Indonesia

Arizon Mega Jaya, Maroni Maroni, Ahmad Irzal Fardiansyah, Muhammad Akib

Abstract


This article discusses the reach and weaknesses of the policy of asset forfeiture of corruption crimes in Indonesia. The main problem lies in the lack of optimal ability of the legal system to change the normative basis of asset confiscation into real state loss recovery. This research uses normative juridical methods with legislative, conceptual, and institutional approaches. The analysis is directed at the ability of asset forfeiture policies to reach hidden assets, assets transferred through third parties or nominees, assets located abroad, and assets that have been disguised through money laundering crimes. The results of the study show that the asset forfeiture policy in Indonesia has a normative reach through the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, the Money Laundering Law, mutual legal assistance mechanisms, and international cooperation. However, its effectiveness is still limited by the dominance of the conviction-based confiscation approach, the lack of clarity of proportionality parameters, weak beneficial ownership arrangements, the lack of strong third-party protection, limited asset tracing, the suboptimal execution of replacement money, and institutional coordination that has not been integrated. This article confirms that the renewal of the asset forfeiture policy needs to be directed towards a more integrated model, oriented towards asset recovery, and still guaranteeing the protection of rights within the principle of the rule of law.

Keywords


corruption; asset recovery; asset forfeiture; proportionality; money laundering crime

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alagna, F. (2015). Non-conviction based confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a missed opportunity. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21(4), 447–461. doi:10.1007/s10610-014-9252-8.

Bikelis, S. (2020). Modeling the patterns of civil confiscation: Balancing effectiveness, proportionality and the right to be presumed innocent. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 13(2), 24–48. doi:10.2478/bjlp-2020-0010.

Boucht, J. (2013). Extended confiscation and the proposed directive on freezing and confiscation of criminal proceeds in the EU: On striking a balance between efficiency, fairness and legal certainty. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 21(2), 127–162. doi:10.1163/15718174-21022024.

Collins, M., & King, C. (2013). The disruption of crime in Scotland through non-conviction based asset forfeiture. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 16(4), 379–388. doi:10.1108/JMLC-07-2013-0023.

Fernandez-Bertier, M. (2016). The confiscation and recovery of criminal property: A European Union state of the art. ERA Forum, 18, 1–20. doi:10.1007/s12027-016-0436-1.

Haswandi, H. (2017). Pengembalian aset tindak pidana korupsi pelaku dan ahli warisnya menurut sistem hukum Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 6(1), 145–172. doi:10.25216/jhp.6.1.2017.145-172.

Hendry, J., & King, C. (2015). How far is too far? Theorising non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. International Journal of Law in Context, 11(4), 398–411. doi:10.1017/S1744552315000269.

Hendry, J., & King, C. (2017). Expediency, legitimacy, and the rule of law: A systems perspective on civil/criminal procedural hybrids. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11(4), 733–757. doi:10.1007/s11572-016-9405-6.

Hryniewicz-Lach, E. (2024). Improving asset confiscation: In the quest for effective and just solutions. ERA Forum, 25(2), 231–247. doi:10.1007/s12027-024-00806-8.

King, C. (2012). Using civil processes in pursuit of criminal law objectives: A case study of non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 16(4), 337–363. doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.4.411.

King, C. (2014). Civil forfeiture and Article 6 of the ECHR: Due process implications for England & Wales and Ireland. Legal Studies, 34(3), 371–394. doi:10.1111/lest.12018.

Kuris, G. (2015). Watchdogs or guard dogs: Do anti-corruption agencies need strong teeth? Policy and Society, 34(2), 125–135. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.04.003.

Leasure, P. (2016). Asset recovery in corruption cases: Comparative analysis identifies serious flaws in US tracing procedure. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 19(1), 4–20. doi:10.1108/JMLC-04-2015-0010.

Maugeri, A. M. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2018/1805: Mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders between efficiency and safeguards. “Proceedings in criminal matters” and non-conviction based confiscation. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 15(2), 164–208. doi:10.1177/20322844241239781.

Mawardi, M. (2015). Recovery asset hasil tindak pidana korupsi dalam aspek kebijakan hukum pidana. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan, 3(1), 75–92.

Milone, S. (2017). On the borders of criminal law: A tentative assessment of Italian “non-conviction based extended confiscation”. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 8(2), 150–170. doi:10.1177/2032284417711573.

Nugraha, X., Katherina, A. M. F., Agustin, W., & Pamungkas, A. (2019). Non-conviction based asset forfeiture sebagai formulasi baru upaya stolen asset recovery tindak pidana korupsi Indonesia. Majalah Hukum Nasional, 49(1), 29–58. doi:10.33331/mhn.v49i1.92.

Ochnio, A. H. (2018). Between the medium and the minimum options to regulate mutual recognition of confiscation orders. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 9(4), 432–445. doi:10.1177/2032284418806667.

Ochnio, A. H. (2021). The tangled path from identifying financial assets to cross-border confiscation: Deficiencies in EU asset recovery policy. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 29(3–4), 218–240. doi:10.1163/15718174-bja10024.

Pavlidis, G. (2022). Asset recovery in the European Union: Implementing a “no safe haven” strategy for illicit proceeds. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 25(1), 109–117. doi:10.1108/JMLC-11-2020-0131.

Republik Indonesia. (1999). Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.

Republik Indonesia. (2001). Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.

Republik Indonesia. (2006a). Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2006 tentang Bantuan Timbal Balik dalam Masalah Pidana.

Republik Indonesia. (2006b). Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2006 tentang Pengesahan United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 2003.

Republik Indonesia. (2010). Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2010 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang.

Sharman, J. C. (2010). Shopping for anonymous shell companies: An audit study of anonymity and crime in the international financial system. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(4), 127–140. doi:10.1257/jep.24.4.127.

Simonato, M. (2017). Confiscation and fundamental rights across criminal and non-criminal domains. ERA Forum, 18, 365–379. doi:10.1007/s12027-017-0485-0.

Sittlington, S., & Harvey, J. (2018). Prevention of money laundering and the role of asset recovery. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(4), 421–441. doi:10.1007/s10611-018-9773-z.

Susanto, S. (2020). Penafsiran asas manfaat tentang asset recovery korban tindak pidana pencucian uang. Jurnal Yudisial, 13(1), 89–105. doi:10.29123/jy.v13i1.343.

Syakur, S. (2022). Pertanggungjawaban pidana oleh pemilik manfaat (beneficial owner) sebagai pelaku pencucian uang dan kejahatan lainnya dalam perseroan terbatas. AML/CFT Journal, 1(1), 101–112.

Tantimin, T. (2023). Penyitaan hasil korupsi melalui non-conviction based asset forfeiture sebagai upaya pengembalian kerugian negara. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 5(1), 85–102. doi:10.14710/jphi.v5i1.85-102.

Trinchera, T. (2020). Confiscation and asset recovery: Better tools to fight bribery and corruption crime. Criminal Law Forum, 31(1), 49–79. doi:10.1007/s10609-020-09382-1.

United Nations. (2003). United Nations Convention against Corruption. United Nations.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.47006/ijlres.v9i2.29901

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON LANGUAGE, RESEARCH AND EDUCATION STUDIES

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 
Creative Commons License
International Journal on Language, Research and Education Studies (IJLRES) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . You are free to share and adapt the material under the terms of this license, provided appropriate credit is given, it is not used for commercial purposes, and any derivatives are shared under the same license.