<![CDATA[This article examines whether a registered fiduciary security right survives seizure and confiscation of collateral connected to money laundering. It uses normative juridical research with statutory, conceptual, and limited case approaches, supported by grammatical, systematic, teleological, and comparative interpretation. The analysis distinguishes existing statutory rights from proposals for reform. Law Number 42 of 1999 establishes registration-based priority and droit de suite, but these provisions do not expressly determine a secured creditor’s payment priority against criminal confiscation. Law Number 8 of 2010 provides asset-control powers and specific objection mechanisms, rather than a comprehensive procedure for adjudicating fiduciary claims. The article’s principal contribution is a proposed proportionality-based harmonization test that combines verification of the criminal connection, validity and chronology of the security, objective good faith, valuation of the protected claim, and procedural safeguards. Unlike approaches limited to replacement collateral or continued personal liability, the test addresses the secured interest within asset-recovery proceedings. It recommends notice, an adversarial hearing, reasoned valuation, and allocation of sale proceeds where the applicable law permits protection of the creditor’s interest. These recommendations do not establish an existing automatic creditor-first payment rule. The analysis focuses on registered collateral alleged to constitute criminal proceeds or instrumentalities. Further legislative and procedural development is necessary to make the proposed model consistently enforceable.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
