<![CDATA[Background: Indonesia’s Draft Asset Forfeiture Law authorizes the Attorney General’s Body for Asset Recovery (BPA) to trace, manage, and liquidate criminal assets. Despite generating Rp19.6 trillion in non-tax state revenue in 2025 under Article 30A of Law No. 11 of 2021, the draft’s three proposed practitioner categories—Asset Recovery Prosecutor, Government Assessor Official, and Evidence Custodian—lack functional-position status under Law No. 20 of 2023. The Civil Curator under PermenPAN-RB No. 15 of 2020 remains an uncertain institutional analogue. Objective: This study assesses whether the Civil Curator framework accommodates the pro justitia functions of the BPA and identifies relevant comparative lessons from the United States, Australia, France, and the United Kingdom. Methods: Using a qualitative comparative socio-legal approach, this study examines legislation, the Draft Law, the BPHN Academic Paper, and the BPA’s 2026 institutional position paper. Statutory, conceptual, and comparative analyses apply Ambtenleer, Gulick’s specialization theory, and Friedman’s legal-system framework to evaluate institutional mandates, investigative and custodial roles, functional positions, and accountability mechanisms. Results: The Civil Curator is designed for reactive, court-ordered civil functions under the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, rendering it structurally incompatible with the BPA’s proactive asset recovery mandate. All four comparator jurisdictions separate investigative functions from custodial and asset management responsibilities. Conclusion: The separation of investigative and curatorship functions is an institutional necessity. The Draft Law should include a lex specialis provision establishing Asset Recovery Practitioner functional positions within the Attorney General’s Office to address this rechtsleemte.]]>
