329

Ridwan Arifin, et. al.

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

LEGALITY: JURNAL ILMIAH HUKUM
Journal homepage: http://www.ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/legality

Collaborative Efforts in ASEAN for Global Asset
Recovery Frameworks to Combat Corruption in
the Digital Era
Ridwan Arifin1*, Sigit Riyanto2, Akbar Kurnia Putra3

1 Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, 50229, Indonesia
2 Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55281,

Indonesia
3 Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Jambi, 36361, Indonesia
* corresponding author: ridwan.arifin@mail.unnes.ac.id

Article

Abstract

Keywords:
Corruption; asset recovery;
ASEAN; International Law
framework; digital age.

In the contemporary digital age, corruption has evolved into a common enemy,
transcending borders and becoming a transnational and extraordinary crime.
Within the ASEAN framework, corruption is no longer perceived as the concern
of a single nation but as a shared threat to all member states and the global
community at large. Despite the pervasive and deeply entrenched nature of
corruption, concerted efforts have been made to combat this scourge. Among these
measures, asset recovery stands out as an extraordinary tool, addressing not only
the prevention and enforcement aspects but also the crucial task of repatriating illgotten gains to their rightful country of origin. Indonesia and the ASEAN
community have entered into various treaties aimed at facilitating asset recovery,
with the ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (AMLAT) serving as a
pivotal legal instrument in this endeavor. Recognizing the transnational nature of
corruption, interstate relations, and diplomatic cooperation have assumed a vital
role in supporting the success of asset recovery processes. This study explores the
evolving landscape of corruption in the digital age, its transformation into a
transnational concern, and the collective efforts undertaken within ASEAN to
combat it. By focusing on asset recovery as an extraordinary measure, it sheds light
on the multifaceted dimensions of eradicating corruption and emphasizes the
importance of international collaboration in returning misappropriated assets to
their rightful owners.

Article History
Received: May 21, 2023
Reviewed: Jun 11, 2023;
Accepted: Oct 10, 2023;
Published: Oct 12, 2023;

Copyright ©2023 by Author(s); This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. All writings
published in this journal are personal views of the authors and do not represent
the views of this journal and the author's affiliated institutions.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin

330

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

INTRODUCTION
Corruption, once considered solely an Indonesian issue, has evolved into a
universal problem that plagues countries worldwide, defying easy eradication. This
global menace not only affects economic aspects but also intertwines with political
dynamics, power structures, and the efficacy of law enforcement systems. The
progression of corruption in Indonesia, both in terms of its scope and complexity, can
no longer be confined to traditional criminal behavior (Jaya, 2006). Today, corruption
has transcended its domestic boundaries to become a transnational phenomenon,
drawing attention from scholars and policymakers alike (Albanese, 2018; Marquette &
Peiffer, 2021; Prakasa, 2019).
In this digital age, where technology facilitates both the perpetration and detection
of corrupt activities, the need for comprehensive legal reforms becomes increasingly
evident. Corruption’s adaptability to new technologies and its capacity to exploit the
digital realm underscores the urgency of updating legal frameworks and law
enforcement strategies (Andini et al., 2023). This paper delves into the universality of
the corruption challenge, highlighting its multifaceted impact on societies and
governance structures globally. It underscores the imperative for nations to unite in
their efforts to combat corruption, emphasizing the critical role of legal reforms in this
endeavor. As corruption knows no borders and thrives in the digital age, it is essential
for nations to adopt collaborative approaches and adapt their legal systems to
effectively address this enduring threat (Obe & Nay, 2022; Prastyono, 2020; Wijayanto
et al., 2021). This paper explores the interconnectedness of corruption, legal reforms,
and the digital age, recognizing the importance of international cooperation in the fight
against corruption as it continues to evolve and permeate societies worldwide. In the
context of Indonesia, corruption has permeated society to a profound extent,
manifesting as pervasive and deeply entrenched activities that have the potential to
precipitate the self-destruction of the nation (Aninda, 2017; Hidayat et al., 2020;
Prakasa, Satria, 2022; Ramadhan, 2017).
On a global scale, corruption was acknowledged as a very complicated, systematic,
and pervasive issue. Corruption, according to the Center for Crime Prevention (CIPC),
is the improper use of (public) power for personal gain. Additionally, it is
acknowledged that corruption encompasses a wide range of behaviors, including
bribery, theft, fraud, extortion, abuse of authority, insider trading exploiting a conflict
of interest, nepotism, unlawful commissions, and contributions of illicit funds to
political parties (Arifin et al., 2019; Boateng et al., 2021; Jancsics, 2019; Pertiwi, 2022).
This signifies that corruption has evolved into a ubiquitous adversary and an
extraordinary offense. It has convincingly transformed from being a localized issue
into a transnational menace with repercussions for all societies and economies.
Consequently, international collaboration becomes imperative for its prevention and
containment and it is necessary to take an extraordinary measure on its eradication.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin, et. al.

331

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

One of the extraordinary measures to fight against corruption is the asset recovery.
The corruption eradication dimension not only embraces preventive actions and law
enforcement but also returns the assets. However, in many conditions, recovering the
assets presents a considerable challenge. Ginting (2012) see asset tracking as a complex
problem because tracking the asset is never easy, let alone returning them. Therefore,
the developing countries where grand corruption has taken place are affected by these
conditions.
Some previous cases provide numerous examples and data of corruptors who save
and run away with their assets to other countries. The General Attorney said that
Gayus Tambunan, the corruptor in the taxation mafia case, kept his assets in four
countries in the form of gold equal to USD 74 billion, the U.S. dollar, and the
Singapore dollar. Similarly, Nazaruddin's corruption case involved assets of USD 5
million, 2 million Euro, and 3 million SGD hidden in Singapore. Meanwhile, in the
case of Hendra Rahardja—BLBI case—it is estimated that around USD 493,647 of
assets are stored in Australia.
Another case of Robert Tantular involves Bank Century assets of as much as Rp.
6 trillion which Robert Tantular was alleged to have rushed to Hongkong with the
assets (Dzulfaroh & Hardiyanto, 2020). Soeharto’s assets valued between USD 13-35
billion left in many other countries still cannot be repatriated to Indonesia (Arifin et
al., 2016).
This condition indicates the importance of asset recovery for Indonesia, and also
for other members of ASEAN. This paper intends to investigate some problems in
the practice of asset recovery within ASEAN as the framework of cooperation against
corruption.
METHODS
To investigate global frameworks on asset recovery within the context of
ASEAN's collective efforts to combat corruption, a multi-faceted research approach
is recommended. This entails conducting a thorough literature review encompassing
academic articles, policy documents, and international agreements, alongside case
studies of ASEAN member states to evaluate their experiences with asset recovery and
anti-corruption endeavors. Data collection encompasses financial and legal
documentation related to asset recovery, as well as corruption indices and rankings
within the region. Interviews and surveys with diverse stakeholders, legal and policy
analyses, and comparative assessments of ASEAN's strategies against global best
practices should be integral to the research. Employing quantitative and qualitative
methods for in-depth analysis (Al-Fatih & Siboy, 2021) should lead to actionable
recommendations and policy insights, all culminating in a comprehensive research
report for dissemination among relevant stakeholders.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin

332

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Asset Recovery in the Shadow Practices: The Complexity of Repatriating the
Money in the Digital Age in ASEAN
Asset recovery—as outlined in the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC
chapter V)—refers to the process by which the proceeds of corruption transferred
abroad are recovered and repatriated to the country from which they were taken or to
their rightful owners. Asset recovery, also known as investment or resource recovery,
is the process of maximizing the value of unused or end-of-life assets through effective
reuse or divestment (Suryosumpeno, 2020; Suud, 2020). In other words, asset recovery
in the case of corruption, was not for individual interest but interstate interest because
asset recovery involves one or many states as shown by many previous cases.
On the other hand, when it comes to the recovery of assets involving Indonesia
and other nations, the legal framework assumes paramount significance. As highlighted
by Harris (2004), law is an essential element in society, and the existence of a legal
system is imperative for regulating the interactions among its constituents. In simpler
terms, this implies that Indonesia and fellow ASEAN member states necessitate a
collective consciousness and formal agreements as the overarching legal mechanisms
binding all members together.
Indonesia has many legislations that regulate corruption and asset recovery itself.
The fundamental legal principles guiding asset recovery efforts can be found in Law
No. 20/2001, Law No. 31/1999 concerning the eradication of corruption, Law No.
7/2006 concerning the ratification of the UNCAC in 2003, Law No. 1/2006
concerning mutual assistance in criminal matters, Law No. 8/2010 concerning money
laundering, as well as the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. The primary
objectives of Law No. 1/2006 concerning the ratification of the UNCAC are to
improve and empower all efforts to prevent and eradicate corruption more efficiently
and effectively, as well as to enhance, facilitate, and support international cooperation
and technical assistance for such purposes, including asset recovery. It also improves
integrity and accountability and manages problems and public wealth carefully (Arifin,
2014; Brunelle-Quraishi, 2011; Hidayatulloh et al., 2022). Those laws serve as guidance
for us to understand how asset recovery is regulated, and the most important is that,
in practical area, it is always linked by international scope with the role or the assistance
of asset recovery (J Ginting, 2011).
The support and function outlined in the international asset recovery instrument
must be viewed as a non-law enforcement activity, thereby only involving non-coercive
measures. This allows law enforcers to freeze and seize looted assets. This action is
exclusively under the rule of municipal legislation of the relevant state, and the assets
are subject to execution by a law enforcement organization.
The dimension of asset recovery could be analysed from the perspective of
criminal law or civil law (Sobko et al., 2023). In Italy, Ireland, and the United States,

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin, et. al.

333

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

for example, civil code procedure is commonly used for asset recovery involving the
confiscation the assets (Brun et al., 2021; Mulyadi, 2015). Depending on the
circumstances, nations including Italy, Ireland, and the United States permit the civil
or preventative seizure of assets allegedly gained from certain criminal activity. Such
forfeiture rules do not call for beyond a reasonable doubt proof of illicit origin, unlike
confiscation in criminal proceedings. Instead of relying on proof based on a balance
of probabilities, this procedure emphasizes a high probability of illicit origin coupled
with the owner’s incapacity to disprove it (Zolkaflil et al., 2023). Besides criminal and
civil procedure at the court, sometimes asset recovery effort takes place voluntarily like
in Abdullah Puteh’s case (Cahyandhi, 2019).
Further, UNCAC which was ratified with Law No.1/2006 defines and states
about asset recovery in Chapter V, Art. 51-58, and it sets forth the basic principles that
become the member states’ goals to widely serve the cooperation and assistance about
this condition. UNCAC uses the restorative approach to all members and has made a
breakthrough in asset recovery which includes the prevention and detection system
proceeds of corruption, the direct system of asset repatriation, the indirect system of
asset recovery, and international cooperation for purposes of confiscation (Iqra et al.,
2021). Furthermore, UNCAC also highlights that each State Party shall, in accordance
with its domestic law, take the following actions: (a) Take any steps that may be
necessary to allow another State Party to file a civil action in its courts to establish title
to or ownership of property acquired through the commission of an offense outlined
in this Convention; (b) Take any steps that may be necessary to allow its courts to
order those who have committed offenses outlined in this Convention to pay a fine;
and (c) Take whatever steps may be required to enable its courts or competent
authorities to accept another State Party's allegation as the conduct of an offense
defined in accordance with this Convention when making a confiscation decision.
In the further context, the provisions of Article 53 of the UNCAC 2003, according
to Mulyadi (2015), show that the asset recovery system can be done directly in three
ways, namely: First, the obligation of each State Party to this Convention to provide
the legal means to other countries in order to file a civil action to the local state courts
as well as establish the ownership of the property which has been acquired from the
corruption offenses as set forth in this Convention. This aspect is limitedly set out in
Article 53 point (a) UNCAC 2003; second, giving permission to the local state court to
order the perpetrators of corruption to pay compensation or damages to other
countries harmed by the violation (Article 53 (b) UNCAC 2003); third, taking action to
allow local courts or competent authorities to also recognize a third-party claim of
ownership of the assets to be conducted foreclosure.
Fleming views that, first, the asset return involves revocation, seizure, and removal;
secondly, the revoked, seized, and removed assets were gained from a criminal act; third,
the revocation, seizure, and removal of assets are intended to minimize another

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin

334

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

criminal chance that may result from the benefits gained from the crime committed
earlier (Fleming, 2007, 2008).
Asset return that is performed under a law enforcement system allows the
aggrieved state to seize and return the property proceeds of the corruption perpetrators
through a series of processes and mechanisms. In terms of either criminal or civil
scopes, assets located inside and outside the country are stored, tracked, frozen,
confiscated, and returned to the aggrieved state affected by corruption, to restore the
financial losses due to corruption (Anggraeny, 2020). This measure is also aimed at
deterring corruptors (Jamin Ginting & Talbot, 2023; Utama, 2021). In the same
context, in the digital age, where financial transactions and asset-hiding have become
increasingly sophisticated, the need for a robust and technologically adept asset
recovery framework is more critical than ever. This comprehensive approach
contributes not only to the restoration of stolen assets but also to the preservation of
the rule of law and the prevention of future corruption (Ariefulloh et al., 2023;
Manthovani, 2023; Wronka, 2022; Wulandari & Dermawan, 2022).
The essential provisions are important in the context of returning assets of the
custodial state to the country of origin. Asset recovery through international
cooperation gives the normative justification of International Cooperation itself, which
includes the provisions on extradition, mutual assistance in criminal matters, transfer
of proceedings, transfer of sentenced person, and joint investigation. Implementation
of this dimension indicates that the Government of Indonesia has ratified extradition
agreements with the Governments of South Korea, Malaysia, Australia, Thailand,
Hong Kong, and the Philippines and has ratified the treaties on mutual legal assistance
in criminal matters with the Australian Government.
In addition, Law No.1/2006 on Mutual Legal Assistance specifies that the
Ministry of Law and Human Rights is the Central Authority implies that requests for
assistance must be made by the Minister directly or through diplomatic channels in
response to a question from the Attorney General or the Chief of the Indonesian
National Police (Kapolri), or the case of corruption, with the Chair of the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK). Procedures for making requests differ among
institutions included in the statute, with some being more clearly regulated than others.
The articles outline multiple processes that must be completed before creating or
even submitting a request for assistance. Although the KPK handles fewer cases
overall than the Indonesian National Police (INP) or the Attorney General’s Office
(AGO), it nonetheless has a small caseload. The investigating officers may start a
request during the pre-investigation or investigation stage when assets have been
identified and located and there is concern about their disappearance. The supervisors,
the head of the unit, the director, and the deputy head of the criminal investigation
division all evaluate and provide their permission before the letter from the chief of

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin, et. al.

335

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

INP to the central authority is issued. Before a formal letter is signed and given to the
Central Authority, the internal review process requires extensive paper efforts.
The necessity to take assets comes during the prosecution stage; however, assets
may be discovered during the investigative stage as well. After assessment by the
Deputy Attorney General for Special or General Crimes and with some assistance
from the Legal Bureau, the prosecutors for the case must make the request to either
the District Attorney or the Attorney General. Through court orders that must be
carried out internationally, the court may also order the confiscation and forfeiture of
assets. The Attorney General will submit a letter to the Central Authority in this
situation requesting that other nations abide by Indonesian court orders.
In further discussion, it is evident that the asset recovery procedure engages not
merely a single entity but a multitude of stakeholders, all of whom significantly
influence the outcome of such recovery efforts. In this context, when contemplating
the establishment of a national asset recovery system, it becomes imperative to
scrutinize a minimum of three fundamental elements, as delineated by Friedman's
theoretical framework. First, in terms of the law substance for asset recovery, it is
related to the provision on asset recovery as outlined in the chapters, articles, and
verses. Substantive elements must consider various aspects of the legal approach that
includes a variety of areas of law, whether criminal, civil, tax or other corporate.
Besides, it also should pay attention to developments in relevant international law,
especially regarding the International Convention against corruption, transnational
crime, and international legal instruments (Rahman & Anam, 2020). Second, in terms of
the elements of legal structure that involve agencies or institutions that specifically
address the issue of asset recovery, in this case, ASEAN does not have a special
institution for this like Asset Recovery Agency (ARA) in the UK. Elements of this
structure should be built as a strong authority and free from the influence and
intervention of any power, including political power. Third, it takes into account the
elements of legal culture such as awareness and commitment for law enforcement, the
government administrator, and the state.
International Law Instrument on Asset Recovery within ASEAN
International collaboration has two different sorts of legal frameworks: treatybased and non-treaty-based. In terms of treaties, there are multilateral conventions and
agreements like the UNCAC (United Nations Conventions against Corruption), the
OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, and the AMLAT (ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaty) as well as bilateral treaties. MLA provisions are used in domestic legislation by
nations that are not treaty-based.
Using multilateral conventions, multilateral and bilateral treaties, or agreement
negotiation as tools to request legal assistance is time-consuming and resourceintensive, needing legal formalities that may prolong the execution of the request and
in some cases make it quite slow, and could potentially jeopardize the confidentiality

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin

336

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

of the case or sensitive information. Therefore, an informal approach should be used
in conjunction with multijurisdictional investigations. In dealing with official
approaches like extradition and MLA, it serves as a transitional phase. This idea is wellrecognized in global best practices for managing global inquiry procedures.
The informal approach can be used for a variety of non-coercive actions, such as
exchanging information and preliminary evidence for investigation leads, providing
non-sensitive data like immigration records and open-source information, tracing
property and non-financial records, getting information on investigation leads, finding
the man-hunt, and more. To get assistance with utilizing coercive measures from
another jurisdiction, such as arresting, repatriating assets, acquiring bank records,
obtaining evidence for legal proceedings, freezing and seizing assets, etc., we have to
apply through a formal channel.
While the gravity of domestic law enforcement procedures must be in place, the
informal approach strategy and goodwill of the requested party are two of the most
crucial factors in accelerating the process of overseas assistance, such as MLA and
extradition. In contrast to non-cooperative jurisdiction, which results in the reverse,
the goodwill of the requested party creates a simpler and faster procedure for the
requesting party. The majority of recalcitrant jurisdictions are unwilling to assist and
conceal their poor commitment through their legal system. For the sake of their own
national interest, the uncooperative jurisdiction has a vested interest in harboring the
proceeds of crime. Law enforcement considers this interest unacceptable because all
individuals and organizations that support crime are also deemed to be criminals.
Therefore, it is crucial that the international community take appropriate action
to address this issue and implement a blacklist of unwilling states in the system of
international legal assistance. The ideal legal structure to resolve this issue is the
UNCAC review mechanism. The multi-jurisdictional connection in dealing with
corruption should be governed by the review process, and it should develop
monitoring methods to make sure the assistance other parties seek is treated seriously
and correctly.
Recently, in further discussion, the role of intelligence cooperation within
multilateral networks such as Interpol, ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency) networks like
the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities, OECD law enforcement
group, Edgmont group, Euro Just, Corruption Hunter Networks, and SEA-PAC
(South East Asia Parties against Corruption) is crucial and significant. When it comes
to handling and exchanging information in criminal matters, such as anti-money
laundering, anti-corruption, and other forms of data and information exchange
cooperation, intelligence cooperation has changed from its negative Cold War image
of undermining other jurisdictions' interests to a positive bilateral relationship. The
criminals could be stopped via effective intelligence cooperation and networks among
law enforcement agencies worldwide.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin, et. al.

337

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

In some cases, law enforcement networks are the only ones capable of thwarting
organized, networked corruptors. Criminals operate through their own networks and
need the assistance of relevant authorities and resources. The key to winning the fight
is networking. The greatest law enforcement organizations in the world, such as the
FBI in the United States, SFO in the United Kingdom, and ICAC in Hong Kong, as
well as KPK, implement a cooperative strategy to build reliable networks. Easy access
to information, a willingness to assist the process, efficiency, and effectiveness in
reaching the outcome, maintaining a cooperating witness, and speeding up the
procedure are all results of good collaboration. The FBI’s slogan, “Cooperation is the most
effective weapon against crime,” conveys the importance of cooperation in a more general
sense. Therefore, cooperation and the FBI’s remarkable operational success are
strongly correlated.
Strong cooperation between the ASEAN can be seen from informal cooperation
between other institutions of states, for example, KPK was the role of international
collaboration on South East Asia Parties against Corruption (SEA-PAC), Cooperation
SEA-PAC is a group of anti-corruption agencies in the countries of Southeast Asia,
namely: Anti-corruption Bureau (ACB) of Brunei Darussalam, the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK) Indonesian, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
(MACC), Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) Singapore, the AntiCorruption Unit (ACU) Cambodia, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) the
Philippines, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) of Thailand, Vietnam
Government Inspectorate (GIV), and the State Inspection Authority (SIA) Laos,
which has a mission to combat cross-country corruption. Through cooperation with
SEA-PAC, members can exchange information and data, a joint investigation, asset
tracking, exchange of evidence and witnesses, and the process of mutual legal
assistance in criminal matters (MLA), to support the acceleration of the process of
returning fugitive.
Within the ASEAN and international community, national police also have an
important role in asset recovery especially for international cooperation itself. National
Central Bureau (NCB) Interpol Indonesia in the ASEAN community worked together
with the ASEANAPOL, like the police community in the ASEAN. We also have the
International Foreign Law Enforcement Community (IFLAC) which serves as a forum
of law enforcement official chiefs in Indonesia.
In the effort of asset recovery within ASEAN, the UNCAC that was ratified by
each member was involved, and so was the MLA, in this case, AMLAT, as mentioned
previously. AMLAT, as the treaty, is used as a legal instrument in the asset recovery
procedure. International cooperation, informal relations, and bilateral agreements also
become the success factors affecting asset recovery.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin

338

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

The Problems and Alternative Solutions
Problems occurring in asset recovery within ASEAN are not only about the
diplomatic relationship but also about the agreements and treaties. Some problems
also show that asset recovery is not as easy as thought because it also involves political
interest, financial state, and money. The problems also vary and are affected by many
factors. One of the factors is that, as Dutcher (2005) said, white-collar crime is almost
related to money flow not only involving just one party but also the organization of
various activities like fraud, markup, and even money laundering.
In terms of legal substance, one significant issue arises from the inadequacy of
rules. Despite Indonesia’s ratification of the UNCAC, the regulations governing asset
recovery lack clarity and specificity. Additionally, the disparities in legal systems
between Indonesia and the relevant states pose a challenge. In the same context, it is
also highlighted that while differing legal systems can present challenges in asset
recovery cases, political and diplomatic relations often play a pivotal role in facilitating
the process, as exemplified by Indonesia’s engagement with Papua New Guinea
(Bureni, 2016; Mahmud, 2018; Saputra, 2017; Sigalingging, 2021),
Even though ASEAN already has MLA in criminal matters that was ratified by
Indonesia by Law No.15 of 2008, this condition applies the non-retroactive principle.
Therefore, it was difficult for Indonesia to track and return the assets before 2008.
Furthermore, according to Le Nguyen (2012) in addition to joining international
conventions, ASEAN member states have signed a significant number of bilateral
MLA treaties with both regional and extra-regional states. The state has shown
potential in providing MLA for the battle against transnational crime, but joining
international conventions and MLA treaties is only the first step. The international
community wants this provision to be implemented effectively in daily life (Le Nguyen,
2012).
The ASEAN Treaty on MLA on Criminal Matters, one of the key regional
agreements, refers to the majority of the goals of mutual assistance in the prevention,
investigation, and prosecution of money laundering offenses, as outlined in Article 1
(2) of AMLAT.
The following are examples of mutual assistance that may be provided in
conformity with this Treaty: gathering information or gaining voluntary comments
from individuals; making plans for people to testify or offer assistance in criminal cases;
making judicial documents serveable; conducting seizures and searches; examining
things and places; giving original or certified copies of all pertinent records, documents,
and pieces of evidence; locating or tracking instruments of crime and property acquired
through the commission of an offense; the prohibition on the exchange of goods or
the freezing of goods obtained through the conduct of an offense that may be
recovered, forfeited, or seized; property that was obtained via the conduct of an

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin, et. al.

339

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

offense that is recovered, forfeited, or confiscated; and tracking down and identifying
potential witnesses and suspects.
Other challenges include the lack of or inadequate asset confiscation laws in some
countries, such as Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, which prohibit the implementation
of preventive measures and requests for international seizure. The lack of consistency
in domestic asset confiscation laws is a typical justification for this kind of assistance
when a state requests help locating, tracking, freezing, or seizing assets as a preventive
measure or when a state requests assistance in seizing criminal proceeds from foreign
states. The MLA regime will undoubtedly be hampered by insufficient cooperation in
enforcing preventive measures and confiscating the proceeds and instrumentalities of
crime. In particular, a lack of good tracing cooperation may make it difficult to find
the sources and primary offenses of the illicit proceeds. Lack of reciprocal support in
freezing, seizing, and confiscating illegal funds may make it easier for money transfers
and other types of fund manipulation (Le Nguyen, 2012; Yuwono et al., 2021).
Further, Indonesia, according to Atmasasmita (2010) has signed the treaty on
mutual assistance in criminal matters with Australia, China, South Korea, and seven
member countries of ASEAN, including Singapore. However, these treaties are
considered to have not been effective in their implementation. It means that, in some
cases, mutual assistance within ASEAN and other countries would be effective if there
were diplomatic, informal, and institutional approaches between the states. Because
some countries would decline the fishing expedition on the asset recovery, Indonesia
should have a bargaining position between ASEAN member states. Regarding the
alternative solution for this case, asset recovery within ASEAN, Indonesia has goodwill
and political will to empower and support this agenda because this problem must
conform to the legal systems, some legislations, as well as cooperation, relation, and
agreement.
CONCLUSION
There is no satisfactory answer to this case. Even the conditions will depend on
the asset recovery within ASEAN since it has to refer to the same procedure,
terminology, and interest to combat corruption and execute asset recovery. Although
ASEAN has AMLAT as the law instrument on asset recovery, it is not effectively
implemented due to some factors: (1) some principles applied by some countries, (2)
lack of court order and fishing expedition, (3) problems of ratifying the treaties on
non-retroactive principle, (4) the absence of special institution focusing on asset
recovery in Indonesia or ASEAN, (5) goodwill and political will of the government in
this case. This study highlights that some efforts can be made to this asset recovery,
including how the law should be reformed. These efforts involve (1) synchronizing the
rules with the international standard, (2) initiating the special institution that focuses
on asset recovery, (3) empowering good diplomatic and informal relations, especially
in the transboundary activities in the digital age (4) emphasizing the asset recovery to

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin

340

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

establish common terminology and procedures, and (5) developing the capacities of
law enforcement officials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The paper is written as a partial assignment at the LLM Program Master of Laws
at Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. We thank Prof. Marsudi
Triatmodjo (UGM, Indonesia), Hibertus Jaka Triyana, Ph.D. (UGM, Indonesia), and
Prof. Eddy Omar Syarif Hiariej (UGM, Indonesia) for their insightful comments
during the class and discussion of the paper. We also thank anonymous reviewers for
their useful and invaluable suggestions, and editorial member of Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah
Hukum, Faculty of Law Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia.
REFERENCES
Al-Fatih, S., & Siboy, A. (2021). Menulis Artikel Karya Ilmiah Hukum di Jurnal Nasional
dan Internasional Bereputasi. Inteligensia Media.
Albanese, J. S. (2018). Countering Transnational Crime and Corruption: The Urge to
Action versus the Patience to Evaluate. Justice Evaluation Journal, 1(1), 82–95.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2018.1478234
Andini, O. G., Nilasari, & Eurian, A. A. (2023). Restorative Justice in Indonesia
Corruption Crime: a Utopia. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 31(1), 72–90.
https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v31i1.24247
Anggraeny, K. D. (2020). Abuse of Authority: A Meaning Deconstruction. Jurnal
Hukum Novelty, 11(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.26555/novelty.v11i2.a17697
Aninda, C. A. (2017). Pancasila Values in the Study of Corruption Cases in Indonesia.
Jurnal Scientia Indonesia, 3(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.15294/jsi.v3i1.36013
Ariefulloh, A., Nugroho, H., Angkasa, A., & Ardhanariswari, R. (2023). Restorative
justice-based criminal case resolution in Salatiga, Indonesia: Islamic law
perspective and legal objectives. Ijtihad : Jurnal Wacana Hukum Islam Dan
Kemanusiaan, 23(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.18326/IJTIHAD.V23I1.19-36
Arifin, R. (2014). Empowering International Cooperation’s Role in the Follow of
Assets of Corruption’s Result. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 11(3), 414–
422. https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol11.3.505
Arifin, R., Faridah, S., & Naefi, M. (2019). Misdemeanor of Corruption within the
Scope of International Law and the Legal Consequences. Journal of Indonesian Legal
Studies, 4(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v4i2.29687
Arifin, R., Utari, I. S., & Subondo, H. (2016). Upaya Pengembalian Aset Korupsi Yang
Berada di Luar Negeri (Asset Recovery) dalam Penegakan Hukum
Pemberantasan Korupsi di Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies,
1(1), 105–137. https://doi.org/10.15294/ijcls.v1i1.10810
Atmasasmita, R. (2010). Globalisasi Kejahatan Bisnis. Kencana Prenada Media.
Boateng, A., Wang, Y., Ntim, C., & Glaister, K. W. (2021). National Culture, Corporate
Governance and Corruption: A Cross‐country Analysis. International Journal of
Finance & Economics, 26(3), 3852–3874. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.1991
Brun, J. P., Sotiropoulou, A., Gray, L., & Scott, C. (2021). Asset Recovery Handbook: A
Guide for Practitioners. World Bank Publications.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin, et. al.

341

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

Brunelle-Quraishi, O. (2011). Assessing the Relevancy and Efficacy of the United
Nations Convention against Corruption: A Comparative Analysis. Notre Dame
Journal
of
International
&
Comparative
Law,
2(1),
101–166.
https://doi.org/https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjicl/vol2/iss1/3/
Bureni, I. F. (2016). Kekosongan Hukum Perampasan Aset Tanpa Pemidanaan dalam
Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 45(4), 292–
298. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.45.4.2016.292-298
Cahyandhi, I. (2019). Pengembalian Aset Negara Hasil Tindak Pidana Korupsi Studi Kasus
Putusan Ir. H. Abdullah Puteh, M. Si. Putusan Mahkamah Agung No: 1344 KJ Pid/
2005. Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya.
Dutcher, J. S. (2005). From the Boardroom to the Cellblock: The Justifications for
Harsher Punishment of White-collar and Corporate Crime. Arizona State Law
Journal, 37(4), 1295–1320.
Dzulfaroh, A. N., & Hardiyanto, S. (2020). Daftar 23 Buronan Korupsi yang Pernah
Melarikan Diri ke Singapura. KOMPAS Online.
Fleming, M. H. (2005). Asset Recovery and Its Impact on Criminal Behavior an Economic
Taxonomy: Draft for Comments. University College.
Fleming, M. H. (2007). Issues in Measuring the Efficacy of a Suspicious Activity
Reports (SARs) Regime. Amicus Curiae, 70(1), 9–12.
Fleming, M. H. (2008). An Examination of the Means of Etablishing the Efficacy of Asset
Recovery and Anti-Money Lundering Policies. University of London, University College
London.
Ginting, J. (2011). Perjanjian Internasional dalam Pengembalian Aset Hasil Korupsi di
Indonesia.
Jurnal
Dinamika
Hukum,
11(3),
450–459.
https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2011.11.3.173
Ginting, J. (2012). Roles of the Mutual Legal Assistances and Extradition Agreements
in the Assets Recovery in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 9(4),
565–582. https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol9.4.360
Ginting, Jamin, & Talbot, P. (2023). Fundraising Aspect of International Terrorism
Organization in ASEAN: Legal and Political Aspects. Lex Scientia Law Review,
7(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.15294/LESREV.V7I1.60074
Harris, D. J. (2004). Case and Materials on International Law. Sweet & Maxwell.
Hidayat, S. N., Karjoko, L., & Hermawan, S. (2020). Discourse on Legal Expression
in Arrangements of Corruption Eradication in Indonesia. Journal of Indonesian Legal
Studies, 5(2), 391–418. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v5i2.40670
Hidayatulloh, H., Erdős, É., & Szabó, M. (2022). The Intricate Justice of Poverty: A
Case of The Land of Gold in Papua Indonesia. Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies,
7(2), 557–584. https://doi.org/10.15294/JILS.V7I2.58030
Iqra, M., Korompot, S., Al-Fatih, S., & Pradhan, D. (2021). The Principle of Equality
Before the Law in Indonesian Corruption Case: Is It Relevant? Journal of Human
Rights,
Culture
and
Legal
System,
1(3),
135–146.
https://doi.org/10.53955/JHCLS.V1I3.13
Jancsics, D. (2019). Corruption as resource transfer: An interdisciplinary synthesis.
Public Administration Review, 79(4), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13024
Jaya, N. S. P. (2006). Sistem Peradilan Pidana (Criminal Justice System). Badan Penerbit
UNDIP.

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin

342

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

Le Nguyen, C. (2012). Towards the Effective ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance in
Combating Money Laundering. Journal of Money Laundering Control, 15(4), 383–395.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13685201211265971
Mahmud, A. (2018). Problematika Asset Recovery dalam Pengembalian Kerugian
Negara Akibat Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Yudisial, 11(3), 347–366.
https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v11i3.262
Manthovani, R. (2023). A Comparative Analysis of Money Laundering Crimes in
Indonesia through Cryptocurrency. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 17(1),
196–210.
Marquette, H., & Peiffer, C. (2021). Corruption and Transnational Organised Crime.
In Routledge Handbook of Transnational Organized Crime (pp. 465–485). Routledge.
Mulyadi, L. (2015). Asas Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian Terhadap Tindak Pidana
Korupsi dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana Indonesia Dihubungkan dengan Konvensi
Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Anti Korupsi 2003. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 4(1),
101–132. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.4.1.2015.101-132
Obe, R. G. A., & Nay, F. A. (2022). Strategy to Suppress Corruption and Money
Laundering in the Digital Age. Journal of Digital Law and Policy, 2(1), 41–52.
https://doi.org/10.58982/jdlp.v2i1.302
Pertiwi, K. (2022). We Care about Others”: Discursive Constructions of Corruption
vis-à-vis National/Cultural Identity in Indonesia’s Business-Government
Relations. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 18(2), 157–177.
https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-03-2019-0025
Prakasa, Satria, U. W. (2022). Reduce Corruption in Public Procurement: The Effort
Towards
Good
Governance.
Bestuur,
10(1),
33–42.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v10i1.51339
Prakasa, S. U. (2019). Garuda Indonesia-Rolls Royce Corruption, Transnational Crime,
and Eradication Measures. Lentera Hukum, 3(3), 407–424.
Prastyono, R. D. (2020). Formulasi Pengaturan Intersepsi dalam Pemberantasan
Korupsi di Era Digital Oleh Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia. Lex Renaissance, 5(3),
511–524. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol5.iss3.art1
Rahman, F., & Anam, M. S. (2020). Hak Asasi Manusia Mantan Narapidana Korupsi
dalam Peraturan Komisi Pemilihan Umum Nomor 20 Tahun 2018 Perspektif
Maqashid Syariah Jasser Auda. Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Konstitusi, 3(2),
65–80. https://doi.org/10.24090/volksgeist.v3i2.3905
Ramadhan, A. (2017). Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam Sistem Penegakan
Hukum di Indonesia (Studi di Kepolisian Daerah Kepulauan Riau). Maleo Law
Journal, 1(1), 83–105.
Saputra, R. (2017). Tantangan Penerapan Perampasan Aset Tanpa Tuntutan Pidana
(Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture) dalam RUU Perampasan Aset di
Indonesia.
Integritas:
Jurnal
Antikorupsi,
3(1),
115–130.
https://doi.org/10.32697/integritas.v3i1.158
Sigalingging, B. (2021). Bantuan Hukum Timbal Balik dalam Perampasan Aset Korupsi
Antar Lintas Batas Negara. Iuris Studia: Jurnal Kajian Hukum, 2(3), 387–398.
https://doi.org/10.55357/is.v2i3.152
Sobko, G., Chenshova, N., Viunyk, M., Duiunova, T., & Palii, E. (2023).
Characteristics of Punishment for Property Embezzlement and Appropriation by

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600

Ridwan Arifin, et. al.

343

LJIH 31 (2) September-2023, 329-343

Military Personnel through Abuse of Office. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 31(1),
157–180. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v31i1.25933
Suryosumpeno, C. (2020). Rezim Pemulihan Aset: Antara Dibenci dan Dibutuhkan!
REQbook.
Suud, A. K. (2020). Optimization of the Role of Asset Recovery Center (PPA) of the
Attorney-General’S Office of the Republic of Indonesia in Asset Recovery of
Corruption Crime Results. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 9(2), 211–231.
https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.9.2.2020.211-231
Utama, P. (2021). Gatekeepers’ Roles as a Fundamental Key in Money Laundering.
Indonesia Law Review, 6(2), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v6n2.215
Wijayanto, W., Sardini, N. H., & Elsitra, G. N. (2021). Menciptakan Ruang Siber yang
Kondusif bagi Pegiat Anti-Korupsi. Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi, 7(1), 179–196.
https://doi.org/10.32697/integritas.v7i1.732
Wronka, C. (2022). Cyber-laundering”: the change of money laundering in the digital
age.
Journal
of
Money
Laundering
Control,
25(2),
330–344.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-04-2021-0035
Wulandari, R., & Dermawan, M. K. (2022). Construction of Anti-Money Laundering
Policy in Indonesia from an International Law. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics,
15(4), 1179–1199.
Yuwono, T., Kusniati, R., & Ardianto, B. (2021). Bantuan Hukum Timbal Balik dalam
Penanganan Kejahatan Transnasional: Studi Kasus Indonesia-Swiss. Uti Possidetis:
Journal
of
International
Law,
2(3),
268–287.
https://doi.org/10.22437/up.v2i3.13042
Zolkaflil, S., Syed Mustapha Nazri, S. N. F., & Omar, N. (2023). Asset recovery
practices in combating money laundering: evidence from FATF mutual
evaluation report of FATF member countries of Asia pacific region. Journal of
Money Laundering Control, 26(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-11-20210127

ISSN (Print) 0854-6509 - ISSN (Online) 2549-4600