<![CDATA[Crypto-assets raise legal challenges for recovering terrorism-related property, particularly when assets are held in non-custodial wallets or controlled across borders. This study examines non-conviction-based forfeiture of crypto-assets as its principal object, treating jurisdiction and seizure powers as prerequisites to enforceable recovery. It aims to compare Indonesian and Malaysian legal frameworks and formulate an integration model compatible with Indonesia’s legal system. The study uses normative legal research with statutory, functional comparative and conceptual approaches. The model is developed by mapping existing remedies, identifying their limits, comparing equivalent legal functions and testing proposed rules against property rights and judicial safeguards. Indonesia already provides specific non-conviction-based remedies under Law Number 8 of 2010 and Law Number 20 of 2025; its problem is therefore fragmented coverage rather than a complete legal vacuum. Malaysia’s AMLA provides a distinct forfeiture route under Section 56, a civil standard of proof and express application deadlines, while Section 116B of its Criminal Procedure Code addresses access to encrypted data. These provisions do not themselves guarantee technical control over crypto-assets. The proposed model integrates existing Indonesian remedies through defined asset categories, proportionate access orders, asset-specific proof, coordinated court procedures and protection of bona fide third parties. Selective adaptation is a defensible reform option, although its operational effectiveness requires further empirical assessment.]]>
