<![CDATA[Asset forfeiture is an important instrument in combating corruption, money laundering, and other economic crimes. However, its implementation raises serious issues regarding the protection of the property rights of bona fide third parties. This article aims to normatively analyze the provisions on third-party protection in the Draft Asset Seizure Law and assess its compatibility with the principles of the rule of law and human rights. This study uses a normative juridical method with a legislative, conceptual, and comparative approach. The results of the study show that the provisions in the Asset Seizure Bill do not yet provide adequate protection for third parties, particularly in relation to the absence of a clear legal definition, an effective objection mechanism, proportional burden of proof provisions, and guarantees for the restoration of property rights. These conditions have the potential to create legal uncertainty and violate constitutional rights. This article recommends the formulation of more comprehensive, transparent, and accountable norms for the protection of third parties so that asset forfeiture remains effective while being in line with the principles of justice and constitutionality.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
