A Dual-Track Asset Recovery Model: Optimizing the Posthumous Forfeiture of Corruption Proceeds
Abstract
The transition of national positive law following the enactment of Law Number 1 of 2023 and Law Number 20 of 2025 creates a doctrinal inconsistency arising from a legislative omission in determining the legal status of evidence when personal criminal prosecution (in personam) is extinguished by operation of law upon the death of a corruption suspect. This normative weakness is reinforced by the inherent limitation of the sequential system under Law Number 31 of 1999. Under this system, civil claims by the State Attorney may be initiated only after the criminal process has been terminated or can no longer proceed, thereby causing asset depreciation and creating a time interval that enables the dissipation of corruption proceeds. This study employs normative legal research with a conceptual approach as the primary approach and a statute approach as the supporting approach through prescriptive qualitative analysis. The findings propose a paradigmatic reconstruction toward a parallel-simultaneous system through a dual-track asset recovery model. Under this model, the proprietary status examination (in rem) may proceed independently without depending on the legal status of the person subject to criminal prosecution. This model strengthens balanced legal protection and due process of law by applying the evidentiary standard of a balance of probabilities. This study recommends accelerating the enactment of the Bill on Asset Forfeiture, adopting limited amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 and Law Number 20 of 2025, and establishing an integrated asset recovery center to optimize the posthumous forfeiture of corruption proceeds and restore public trust in law enforcement.
Downloads
References
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. https://dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang-dasar
Anisa, T., & Nelson, F. M. (2024). Asset Forfeiture through Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture and Management of Criminal Proceeds Assets: A Comparative Study with the United States and Thailand. Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum, 23(2), 1137-1161. https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v23i2.4183
Arsyad, N., Husen, L. O., Hasyim, S., & Muzakkir, A. K. (2026). The Nature of Mechanism for Enforcing the Ethics and Honor of State Administrators as a Preventive Measure for Corrupt Practices. Cogent Social Sciences, 12(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2026.2620142
Boong, V. R., Irawan, J. E., Ibrahim, C., & Jonathan, S. (2023). Asset Return in Money Laundering. Corruptio, 4(2), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.25041/corruptio.v4i2.3237
Cassella, S. D. (2019). Lecture: Asset Forfeiture in the United States. Latin American Legal Studies, 4, 171-190. https://doi.org/10.15691/0719-9112vol4a1
Chistyakova, Y., Wall, D. S., & Bonino, S. (2021). The Back-Door Governance of Crime: Confiscating Criminal Assets in the UK. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 27(4), 495-515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09423-5
Colonial Regulations, Staatsblad Number 23 of 1847 on the Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie/the Civil Code. https://jdih.mahkamahagung.go.id/legal-product/kitab-undang-undang-hukum-perdata/detail
Flora, M. (2020, September 2). Fakta-Fakta Kasus Bunuh Diri Mantan Kepala BPN Denpasar Pakai Senpi Ilegal. Liputan6.com. Retrieved February 20, 2026, from https://liputan6.com/news/read/4345564
Friedman, L. M. (1975). The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. Russell Sage Foundation. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=pvIWAwAAQBAJ
Greenberg, T. S., Samuel, L. M., Grant, W., & Gray, L. (2009). Stolen Asset Recovery : A Good Practices Guide for Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture. The World Bank. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/2615
Heathershaw, J., & Mayne, T. (2023). Explaining Suspicious Wealth: Legal Enablers, Transnational Kleptocracy, and the Failure of the UK’s Unexplained Wealth Orders. Journal of International Relations and Development, 26(2), 301-323. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-023-00296-0
Herdiana, A. D. (2026). Procedural Law Dualism in Asset Forfeiture Regime: Conflict of Evidentiary Norms and Judicial Oversight Regarding Human Rights Protection. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(2), 1146-1161. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i2.625
Irwansyah. (2020). Penelitian Hukum: Pilihan Metode & Praktik Penulisan Artikel. Mirra Buana Media.
Jumantoro, T. R. P., Satya, R. M., & Rahmadani, F. N. (2025). Analisis Kerangka Regulasi Asset Forfeiture dalam Mengakhiri Praktik Impunitas Korupsi: Studi Komparasi dengan Negara Singapura, Inggris, dan Thailand. Jurnal Inspektorat, 1(1), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.64527/inspektorat.v1i1.10
Latifansyah, M. A., Rifai, A., & Sadino, S. (2024). Legal Measures to Support the Process of Asset Recovery in the State-Owned Enterprises Banking Sector Post-Corruption Cases. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 27(2), 427-452. https://doi.org/10.56087/aijih.v27i2.514
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1946 on the Penal Code Regulations. https://dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/814
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1981 Number 76, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3209). https://dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/755
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1999 Number 140, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3874). https://dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/432
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 20 of 2001 on Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2001 Number 134, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4150). https://dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/351
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2023 on the Penal Code (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2023 Number 1, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 6842). https://dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/1818
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2025 Number 188, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 7149). https://dpr.go.id/dokumen/jdih/undang-undang/detail/2011
Pawe, T., Husen, L. O., & Muzakkir, A. K. (2025). The Paradox of a Rule of Law State: A Critical Reflection on the Dialectic between Discourse and Reality in the Eradication of Corruption in Indonesia. Sovereign: International Journal of Law, 7(1-2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.37276/sijl.v7i1-2.56
Prasetya, M. D., Ilyas, A., Arifin, A. P., Fuady, M. I. N., & Saeedi, Y. (2026). Legal Pluralism based on World Policy Hybridization: A Comparison of Malaysian and Iranian Asset Forfeiture. Kosmik Hukum, 26(1), 146-164. Retrieved from https://jurnalnasional.ump.ac.id/index.php/kosmik/article/view/28698
Qamar, N., & Rezah, F. S. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Doktrinal dan Non-Doktrinal. CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn). https://books.google.co.id/books?id=TAQHEAAAQBAJ
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=PMdsAAAAIAAJ
Remmelink, J. (2003). Hukum Pidana: Komentar atas Pasal-Pasal Terpenting dari Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Belanda dan Padanannya dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Indonesia (Trans. by T. P. Moeliono). PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=JC_8uAAACAAJ
Salwa, A. M. (2026). The Future of Indonesian Asset Confiscation through the Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) Mechanism: A Comparative Study with the UK. Jurist-Diction, 9(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.20473/jd.v9i1.71880
Sampara, S., & Husen, L. O. (2016). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Kretakupa Print.
Sandhy, A. P., & Panjaitan, H. (2026). The Cost Burden Paradox in Petty Corruption Enforcement: A Socio-Legal Study Based on Cost-Awareness. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(2), 1058-1077. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i2.564
Sianipar, F. A., Sambas, N., & Yanto, O. (2024). The Indonesian Arrangement of Asset Forfeiture Draft as Reform Efforts in Recovering State Losses Due to Corruption: A Comparative Study of United States Code. Yuris: Journal of Court and Justice, 3(2), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.56943/jcj.v3i2.509
Suhartono, A., & Panjaitan, H. (2025). Normative Reconstruction of Asset Forfeiture: A Legal Pathway Following Demise of Corruption Suspects. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(2), 682-707. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i2.511
Sutopo, R. B. P., & Panjaitan, H. (2025). A Juridical Demarcation: Reconstructing the Proof of Mens Rea to Differentiate Policy and Corruption by Public Officials. SIGn Jurnal Hukum, 7(2), 765-784. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v7i2.525
Syauket, A. (2025). Sita Jaminan Terhadap Harta Waris Koruptor: Pendekatan Nuansa Procedural Perdata Guna Memaksimalkan Pengembalian Aset Menuju Good Governance. Journal of Law and Security Studies, 2(1), 106-122. https://doi.org/10.31599/j72r8b58
Tantimin, T. (2023). Penyitaan Hasil Korupsi Melalui Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture sebagai Upaya Pengembalian Kerugian Negara. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 5(1), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v5i1.85-102
Zainab, N., Tumanggor, M. S., Syauket, A., & Tobing, C. I. (2025). Asset Forfeiture and the Management of Seized and Confiscated Property as an Effort toward Asset Recovery in Indonesia and Thailand. Greenation International Journal of Law and Social Sciences, 3(3), 762-772. https://doi.org/10.38035/gijlss.v3i3.536
Zyham, Z., Marlina, A., & Suhartina, S. (2022). Asset Recovery Corruption by the Heirs. Delictum: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam, 1(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.35905/delictum.v1i2.3189
Copyright (c) 2026 Anang Suhartono, John Pieris, Aarce Tehupeiory, Hulman Panjaitan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
