<![CDATA[Account blocking within the framework of preventing money laundering raises legal issues when such measures directly affect citizens’ property rights without clear judicial oversight and objection procedures. This condition places administrative authority in tension with the principles of a state governed by law, particularly the principle of legality and the principle of fair legal procedure. This study aims to analyze the regulatory framework governing the authority of the Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) in suspending transactions that result in account blocking under positive law, to assess its practice from the perspective of rule of law principles, and to evaluate the legitimacy of such policies through the legal maxim darʾ al-mafāsid muqaddam ʿalā jalb al-maṣāliḥ within the framework of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah. This research employs normative legal methods using statutory, conceptual, and philosophical-normative approaches in Islamic law. The findings indicate that PPATK’s authority is normatively preventive and administrative in nature, limited to temporary suspension of transactions, and therefore cannot be interpreted as authority to impose permanent restrictions on property rights without subsequent legal mechanisms. The practice of account blocking without clear time limits, effective objection mechanisms, and judicial supervision potentially contradicts the principle of legality and constitutional protection of property rights. From the perspective of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, such policies are legitimate only when they genuinely prevent real public harm, are implemented proportionally and temporarily, and do not create new harm to individual property protection. Therefore, clearer limitations on authority and stronger legal protection mechanisms are necessary to ensure that public interest protection remains aligned with justice and legal certainty.]]>
