<![CDATA[Asset forfeiture/confiscation constitutes a key instrument in the enforcement of economic crimes, corruption, and money laundering offenses. This research compares the legal framework, the institutional functions, the mechanisms of implementation, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of asset forfeiture practices in Indonesia and Thailand. The methodology applied is normative juridical combined with a comparative approach, primarily through the examination of statutory regulations. The findings reveal that Thailand adopts a combination of criminal and non-conviction-based (NCB) mechanisms, primarily under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, with institutions such as the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) playing an active role. In contrast, Indonesia currently emphasizes conviction-based mechanisms, with asset management divided among several state agencies. Nevertheless, ongoing reform efforts are underway, including the legislative debate on the Draft Bill on Asset Forfeiture, which seeks to introduce a more comprehensive framework for asset seizure and management. The recommendations advanced include juridical harmonization, strengthening institutional capacity for asset management, enhancing inter-agency cooperation mechanisms, and promoting transparency in asset auctions and restitution.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
