Reconstruction of Criminal Asset Regulations in Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations Bankruptcy Proceedings to Prevent the Decline of Bankruptcy Estate Value: A Justice and Legal Certainty Perspective

Bontor Octavianus (Universitas Kristen Indonesia)
Dhaniswara K. Harjono (Universitas Kristen Indonesia)
Hulman Panjaitan (Universitas Kristen Indonesia)
Tomson Situmeang (Universitas Kristen Indonesia)

Asian Journal of Social and Humanities
Vol. 4 No. 12 (2026): Asian Journal of Social and Humanities

This research aimed to analyze the normative conflict between criminal seizure and general seizure within the context of Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang [PKPU]) and bankruptcy proceedings, its impact on the decline in the value of the bankruptcy estate (boedel pailit), and the urgency of regulatory reconstruction from the perspectives of justice and legal certainty. This research employed a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Data were collected through library research involving legislation, legal literature, and relevant court decisions, and were analyzed qualitatively. The findings revealed that the regulation of criminal seizure and bankruptcy seizure remained characterized by normative disharmony, resulting in jurisdictional conflicts between law enforcement authorities and bankruptcy trustees (kurator) over the same assets. This condition prevented assets that had become part of the bankruptcy estate from being managed optimally due to their status as objects of criminal seizure. Consequently, the economic value of the bankruptcy estate declined due to asset depreciation, maintenance costs, and the loss of economic opportunities during the criminal process. Such circumstances reduced the estate’s capacity to satisfy creditor claims and created injustice for good-faith creditors. The absence of clear regulations governing the relationship between criminal seizure and bankruptcy seizure created legal uncertainty. Therefore, regulatory reconstruction was needed to clarify the legal status of seized assets within the bankruptcy estate, strengthen coordination between law enforcement authorities and bankruptcy trustees (kurator), and establish asset management mechanisms to preserve economic value during criminal proceedings. This reconstruction was expected to support the principles of justice and legal certainty by ensuring that criminal enforcement objectives and creditor protection within bankruptcy proceedings could be balanced.