Borobudur Law and Society Journal

Convicting a corruptor does not by itself return the stolen money, and in Indonesia forfeiture normally follows a final judgment against a living, identified and available defendant. This normative study asks what the current law already allows in the way of forfeiture without conviction, why this has not been enough, and what safeguards a future Asset Forfeiture Act must contain. It uses statutory, conceptual and comparative approaches and analyses the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), Law No 31 of 1999 as amended in 2001, Law No 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, Law No 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure, the Asset Forfeiture Bill and the doctrinal literature. The study finds that Indonesian law provides only partial routes: forfeiture within a criminal case, including after the defendant’s death, and civil suits against persons or heirs, none of which is an action against the asset itself. UNCAC art 54(1)(c) only asks states to consider such an action, and comparative case law accepts it where the standard of proof, the right to be heard and protection of good-faith third parties are secured. The Bill, still under discussion in 2026, must therefore settle the forum, the proof of unlawful origin, third-party rights and asset management. A specific in rem procedure with these safeguards would complement, not replace, criminal prosecution.