<![CDATA[Asset forfeiture constitutes an essential legal mechanism for recovering corruption-derived proceeds and effectively restoring state financial losses within the national legal system of Indonesia. Within this framework, its legal implementation must strictly align with the overarching principle of legal certainty, particularly regarding norm clarity, enforcement predictability, procedural safeguards, and the full protection of legitimate third-party property rights. This comprehensive study examines the governing legal framework of asset forfeiture in corruption cases and critically analyzes how statutory provisions, evidentiary mechanisms, institutional mandates, and judicial considerations interrelate with legal certainty. Employing a normative legal research methodology through statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, primary legal materials—including the 1945 Constitution, Anti-Corruption Law, Money Laundering Law, Corruption Eradication Commission Law, and selected judicial decisions—were thoroughly analyzed using systematic, grammatical, and teleological interpretations. The findings demonstrate that achieving true legal certainty in asset forfeiture relies heavily on explicit statutory bases, coherent institutional authority, adequate evidentiary standards, and robust procedural safeguards for affected property holders. Furthermore, the study identifies significant doctrinal ambiguities regarding the fundamental legal distinction between traditional criminal forfeiture following a conviction and non-conviction-based asset recovery mechanisms. It strongly emphasizes that non-conviction-based mechanisms cannot be presumed without explicit statutory authorization. Consequently, the study concludes that strengthening legal certainty requires clearer statutory delineation of applicable procedures, institutional powers, evidentiary burdens, and comprehensive safeguards for legitimate property rights within the existing legislative structure.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
