The widespread public pressure to pass the Asset Forfeiture Bill has become one of the most talked-about topics among various segments of society. However, this bill is something that must be discussed with great caution and critical thinking to ensure that it does not result in a repressive regulation.

The Draft Law or Asset Forfeiture Bill has now become a major public demand. With the growing momentum behind this bill, there are several important points that need to be considered by all layers of society.

Understanding a bill thoroughly is the key to creating a regulation that meets the needs of the people and promotes national welfare. Once a bill is passed into law, all citizens and authorized law enforcers will be bound by a regulation that must be adhered to.

Conceptually, the Asset Forfeiture Bill is indeed crucial, as illicit funds from corruption are often transferred into other assets or held under the names of family members and associates of the perpetrators. At its core, the Asset Forfeiture Bill is a regulation that grants the state authority to seize assets derived from crime without having to wait for a final and legally binding criminal court verdict.

There are other countries that have implemented similar laws, such as the United States and Italy, which are pioneers in civil and non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. Additionally, countries like the Philippines, Australia, the UK, as well as nations in the European Union, Latin America, and ASEAN—such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, and Thailand—have adopted such frameworks. This legal framework is also supported by international agreements, notably the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which encourages its member states to adopt laws concerning asset forfeiture.

In principle, this bill has good intentions—to deter corrupt actors, so that corruption in Indonesia can be significantly reduced. However, upon closer examination, the bill also grants very broad powers, potentially even too broad, to law enforcement agencies.

• There is a provision that grants authorized bodies the right to seize and transfer ownership of assets linked to criminal acts even before a final court verdict is issued. This is highly contradictory to the presumption of innocence principle.
• There is also a provision that allows for the seizure of assets if there is an imbalance between a person’s income and the amount of assets they possess. If the wording and definition of "imbalance" are not clearly regulated, this could become a political weapon for those in power to destroy political opponents. It also opens the door to multiple interpretations by law enforcement, who may act in the name of the law—seizing assets and even accessing personal data—based solely on suspicion of violating the law.

Forcing the passage of a bill without scrutinizing its content can have negative consequences. It could become a double-edged sword that ultimately harms public welfare. It is the duty of the public to ensure that this bill does not become a boomerang, used as a tool of repression by law enforcement against the people.

A fair and properly crafted Asset Forfeiture Bill will be very beneficial in combating corruption in Indonesia. Therefore, active public participation is essential and should be prioritized in the drafting of this bill. It is the responsibility of each of us to study the bill and monitor every step toward its ratification, so that it results in a fair, transparent regulation that serves as a deterrent to corrupt individuals—while always upholding a pro-people principle.