Formulation of Asset Confiscation Without Criminal Decision (Non-Conviction Based) Based On The Principle of Due Process of Law

Authors

  • Michael Yudhistira Lumban Goal Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University Malang, Indonesia
  • Abdul Madjid Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University Malang, Indonesia
  • Fachrizal Afandi Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University Malang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55173/yurisdiksi.v22i2.374

Keywords:

Formulation, Asset Confiscation, Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture, Corruption Crimes, Legal Policy, Due Process of Law.

Abstract

Asset forfeiture is a strategic legal instrument in the eradication of corruption, particularly for recovering state financial losses. However, asset forfeiture mechanisms that rely on criminal convictions often face various obstacles, such as the complexity of the evidentiary system, the lengthy judicial process, and the perpetrator's ability to conceal or divert assets derived from crime. Therefore, the concept of Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture (NCB) has developed as an alternative legal policy that allows for asset forfeiture without having to wait for a final and binding criminal verdict. This study aims to analyze the NCB concept as a legal policy for asset forfeiture in corruption cases, while also examining the normative weaknesses in the Asset Forfeiture Bill, which currently does not optimally accommodate this principle. The study results indicate that the Asset Forfeiture Bill still has several fundamental weaknesses, including the lack of explicit regulation of the reverse burden of proof mechanism, provisions that open up the opportunity for changes to legal norms through government regulations, and the failure to prioritize asset forfeiture over criminal punishment. These conditions have the potential to reduce the effectiveness of recovering state losses and undermine the primary objective of asset forfeiture. Therefore, a reformulation of asset confiscation legal policy is needed by strengthening the reverse burden of proof, emphasizing compliance with the hierarchy of laws and regulations, and shifting the law enforcement paradigm to prioritize asset recovery. Therefore, the implementation of the NCB concept is expected to be an effective, fair, and progressive legal instrument in supporting the eradication of corruption in Indonesia.

References

Anggraini, NS, Indrawati, A., & Novianto, A. (2024). Asset confiscation bill: Dream or solution?. Innovative: Journal of Social Science Research, 4(4), 3772–3783.

Allen, J. (2021). Rethinking the relationship between reverse burdens and the presumption of innocence. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(2), 115–134.

Cassella, S. D. (2015). Civil asset recovery: The American experience. In R. Broome (Ed.), Research handbook on international financial crime (pp. 350–372). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chazawi, A. (2005). Material and formal criminal law on corruption in Indonesia (2nd ed.). Banyumedia Publishing.

Clancy, Á., & Campbell, L. (2024). The principled and practical limits of unexplained wealth orders. University of Western Australia Law Review, Forthcoming.

Davis, P. J. (2016). To return the funds at all: Global anticorruption, forfeiture, and legal frameworks for asset return. University of Memphis Law Review, 47, 291–340.

Fajaryanto, AS, et al. (2025). Reverse burden of proof system in money laundering crimes. Journal of Innovation Research and Knowledge, 5(2), 1145–1156

Garnasih, Y. (2009). New paradigm in anti-corruption regulation in Indonesia related to UNCAC 2003. PRIORIS Law Journal, 2(3), 161–174. (Garnasih, 2009; Davis, 2016).

Gray, A.D. (2012). Forfeiture provisions and the criminal/civil divide. New Criminal Law Review, 15(1), 32–67

Greenberg, T.S., Samuel, L., Grant, W., & Gray, L. (2009). Stolen asset recovery: Good practices guide for non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. World Bank Publications.

Hamzah, A. (2017). Indonesian Criminal Law. Sinar Grafika

Hafid, I. (2021). Asset confiscation without criminal punishment from the perspective of economic analysis of law. Lex Renaissance, 6(3), 465–480.

Kennedy, A. (2006). Designing a civil forfeiture system: An issues list for policymakers and legislators. Journal of Financial Crime, 13(2), 132–163.

Najib, MA (2023). The controversy surrounding the ratification of the draft law on asset confiscation in Indonesia. Sosio Yustisia: Journal of Law and Social Change, 3(2), 159–175

Priyatno, D. (2018). Non conviction based (NCB) asset forfeiture for recovering the corruption proceeds in Indonesia. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 9(31), 219–233

Young, S.N.M. (Ed.). (2009). Civil forfeiture of criminal property: Legal measures for targeting the proceeds of crime. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-08

How to Cite

Formulation of Asset Confiscation Without Criminal Decision (Non-Conviction Based) Based On The Principle of Due Process of Law. (2026). YURISDIKSI : Jurnal Wacana Hukum Dan Sains, 22(2), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.55173/yurisdiksi.v22i2.374