Muhammad Ari Pratomo Thanks Pati United Community Alliance, Proposes Four Key Points for Indonesia’s Asset Forfeiture Law

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Indonesian lawyer Muhammad Ari Pratomo has expressed his appreciation and gratitude to the Pati United Community Alliance and other members of the public who have called for the immediate passage of Indonesia’s proposed Asset Forfeiture Law.

Pratomo said public participation in demanding stronger legal measures against corruption and crimes involving state finances reflects an important role for citizens in safeguarding public money.

He stressed, however, that the public campaign should not end with political commitments or the eventual passage of the legislation.

According to Pratomo, Indonesia’s House of Representatives and the government must ensure that the future Asset Forfeiture Law contains clear, fair and carefully defined provisions that cannot be misused against ordinary citizens.

“I would like to thank the Pati United Community Alliance and all elements of society who have fought to raise awareness about the importance of an Asset Forfeiture Law. This is a reflection of public concern for the future of the nation and for state funds that ultimately come from the people, including through the taxes they pay,” Pratomo said.

He added that if the Indonesian parliament proceeds with its plan to pass the Asset Forfeiture Law, the public should continue monitoring not only the legislative process but also the substance of every provision included in the final legislation.

Pratomo proposed four key points that, in his view, should be explicitly addressed in the law.

1. Clear Scope to Prevent Misuse Against Ordinary Citizens

The first proposal concerns the need for clear legal definitions regarding the individuals and assets that may fall under the scope of asset forfeiture.

Pratomo said the legislation should be clearly directed at proceeds of crime connected to the abuse of public office, state authority and public finances.

He proposed that the law explicitly focus on state officials, public administrators and other individuals who receive, manage, control or unlawfully benefit from public funds and subsequently commit criminal offenses connected to illicit assets.

“There must be clear provisions. A law created to fight corruption and recover the proceeds of crime must not later become an instrument that can be excessively or arbitrarily used against ordinary citizens,” he said.

Pratomo argued that clear legal definitions, transparent evidentiary standards, judicial oversight and protection for good-faith parties should form an essential part of the legislation.

“The state must be strong in pursuing the proceeds of crime, but that power must never turn into arbitrariness,” he added.

2. Explicit Maximum Penalties for Extraordinary Crimes

The second proposal concerns criminal sanctions for offenses that cause exceptionally serious harm to the state and society.

Pratomo proposed that the legislation explicitly consider the death penalty as one of the maximum criminal sanctions for certain extraordinary crimes involving large-scale damage to state finances and the public, subject to strict legal limitations and the applicable Indonesian legal framework.

According to him, large-scale crimes involving the abuse of power and the theft or misuse of public funds should not be treated as ordinary offenses.

“If a crime is committed on a massive scale and causes extraordinary consequences for the state and the people, the country must have the courage to impose the strongest possible sanctions, provided that the entire process remains based on law, strong evidence and a judicial decision,” he said.

He said severe penalties could serve as both a deterrent and a demonstration of the state’s commitment to protecting public finances and the interests of its citizens.

3. Assets Hidden Under Other Names Should Still Be Subject to Forfeiture

Pratomo’s third proposal focuses on the practice of concealing criminal proceeds by placing assets under the names of other individuals.

He said an effective Asset Forfeiture Law must anticipate situations in which suspects or convicted offenders transfer, disguise or register assets under the names of family members, friends, companies, nominees or other third parties.

For that reason, he proposed that the legislation explicitly allow the forfeiture of assets that are not formally registered in the name of the offender, provided there is sufficient legal evidence linking those assets to criminal activity or illicit financial flows.

“An asset should not become untouchable simply because its ownership has been transferred to another name. If it can be proven that the asset originated from criminal proceeds or was acquired using money derived from crime, the state must be able to pursue forfeiture through a fair legal process,” Pratomo said.

He also emphasized that the rights of legitimate third parties who acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the criminal origin of an asset must remain protected.

4. Protection for Those Who Help Expose Illegal Gratification

The fourth proposal concerns members of the public who have provided money, gifts, facilities or other benefits to state officials or public administrators and later choose to report such conduct to law enforcement authorities.

Pratomo said many cases involving bribery and illegal gratification remain difficult to uncover because those with knowledge of the transactions, including individuals who may have been involved, are often afraid to come forward.

He proposed that the law establish a clear mechanism for individuals who voluntarily disclose such conduct and provide meaningful assistance in uncovering criminal activity.

Under his proposal, a person who has provided money or gifts to a state official or public administrator and subsequently voluntarily reports the matter and assists investigators could receive legal protection as a reporting party or cooperating witness, provided that specific legal requirements are met.

“The state must create space for people to speak up and expose bribery and illegal gratification. Someone who genuinely wants to reveal a crime should not automatically be treated in exactly the same way as the principal offender,” Pratomo said.

However, he stressed that such provisions must be carefully drafted to prevent them from becoming a loophole for the main perpetrators of corruption or bribery to escape criminal responsibility.

“There must be a clear distinction between a good-faith reporting party who makes a genuine contribution to exposing a crime and a principal offender who is simply looking for a way to avoid legal accountability,” he said.

Strong Against Corruption, Fair to the People

Pratomo said the central purpose of the proposed Asset Forfeiture Law should be to ensure that criminals are unable to continue enjoying wealth obtained through illegal activities.

At the same time, he said the strength of the legislation must be balanced with the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty, protection of individual rights and effective judicial oversight.

“The principle is simple. The state must be extremely firm against anyone who steals, misuses or enriches themselves with the people’s money. But the state must also guarantee that ordinary citizens will not become victims of excessive or arbitrary law enforcement,” Pratomo said.

He called on Indonesia’s parliament not only to focus on the timeline for passing the legislation, but also to ensure meaningful public participation in discussions surrounding its provisions.

Pratomo urged civil society groups, legal practitioners, academics and members of the public to continue monitoring the legislative process.

“The struggle does not end when the law is passed. The public must continue to ensure that every provision is genuinely used to pursue the proceeds of crime, combat corruption, protect public money and prevent those in power from using the law arbitrarily,” he concluded.

MuhammadAriLaw News will continue to follow developments surrounding Indonesia’s proposed Asset Forfeiture Law and public efforts to strengthen accountability, combat corruption and protect state finances.