The recovery of corruption assets is still minimal, and Bam -Sweet presses the asset that grabs the account

Jakarta – Member of the House of Representatives Commission III, as well as a permanent lecturer at the Borobudur University Legal Study Program, Bambang Soesatyo, said the deprivation of assets of corruption and money laundering (TPPU) is an important element in the strategy to eradicate economic crime in Indonesia. However, according to him, the current regulation and justice system still experiences shortcomings regarding the restoration of assets quickly, effective and cross -jurisdiction. Dependence on criminal decisions, restrictions on the detection technology and the overlapping authority of law enforcement agencies become the most important obstacles to be addressed. He explained on the basis of KPK data in 2024 that the total state loss due to corruption reached RP 45.7 trillion, but the recovery of assets by existing mechanisms only affected the figure of about RP 2.5 trillion in the period 2020-2024. According to Bam seed, it shows how crippled efforts to return assets compared to the value of losses caused. In fact, the United Nations by the United Nations Convention on Corruption (Uncac) ratified by Indonesia has highlighted the importance of mechanisms for the restoration of assets as the basic principle of war against global corruption. Browse to continue with the content “Although Indonesia already has a legal umbrella, such as the Corruption erasing Act (Corruption) and the TPPU prevention and eradication law, its effectiveness to ensure the optimal recovery of assets is still questionable. “As a result, assets that are frozen do not regularly experience value in the value of the state before seizing the state,” he continued. He said this during the teaching of the National Legal Reform course, the doctoral program in jurisdictions on Borobudur University Campus, Jakarta, today. He also explained one of the most important obstacles in attempting to restore assets was dependence on the mechanism of the conviction -based forfeiture, namely the deprivation of assets that could first be carried out to a criminal decision with permanent legal force. This process often takes a long time and winding, especially if the perpetrators escape or hide abroad. In addition, the restrictions of technology in asset detection are also an important challenge. Many crime assets are transmitted by different channels and methods that are difficult to detect. He explained that the data of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) showed that less than 1% of the total asset values ​​seized all over the world were the result of money laundering and corruption. In Indonesia, the lack of technological infrastructure to monitor and detect assets movements becomes an obstacle that makes the restoration of assets more difficult. “Overlapping authority under law enforcement agencies, such as the Corruption -eradication Commission (KPK), the Attorney General’s Office, and National Police are also occurring. Without a clear synergy, the process of recovering assets is often hampered by bureaucracy and competition between institutions,” Bamsoet said. “It delays the procedure and leads to the loss of opportunities to recover stolen assets immediately. Therefore, a comprehensive legal renewal is needed to create a more efficient system,” he added. Bam-Seet said that the legal renewal by the Bill on the grasp of asset provides substantial solutions by introducing the concept of forfeit of non-enriched assets (NCB), special courts and measurable reverse evidence mechanisms. The NCB concept, says Bam -Seet, allows the recovery of assets without having to wait for a criminal decision with permanent legal force. This will accelerate the process of returning assets to the state and reduce the possible loss of assets by transfer or disappearance. “Several countries have adopted NCB mechanisms with significant results for the first time. For example, the United States uses the Civil Assets Reformation Reformation Act (CAFRA) that enables the deprivation of assets in civil affairs if it is related to criminal acts,” he explained. “Switzerland and Singapore are also implementing a legal system that enables authority to confiscate assets based on investigations, although there was no reinforcement of the court decisions. Meanwhile, Australia gave the court in 2002 to order the deprivation of assets based on the proof of the probability balance,” Bamoet explained. Although promising, the implementation of the Bom Bamout is estimated that Bamoet faces different challenges, ranging from political resistance, limited institutional capacity, to the issue of constitutionality related to the principle of presumption of innocence and protection of property rights. With the severity and joint commitment, this legal renewal is expected to strengthen the asset recycling system in Indonesia. “Various strategic steps that can be taken include accelerating the ratification of the bill, while still paying attention to the principles of justice and human rights, the formation of integrated asset recovery units on institutions, the technical capacity of law enforcement, the development of digital -based national asset information systems and active involvement of the community. Also, look at “Bamsoet Rhymes in the final session of the MPR: Banyan Tree at the Crossroads” Here: (PRF/Ega) HOEGENG Awards 2025 Read the inspiring story of the exemplary police candidate here