The House of Representatives is currently drafting the Bill on Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering (“Bill”). Forwarded by the Government to the House of Representatives (DPR) for discussion in February this year, the Bill includes several controversial provisions; a hotly debated provision allowing the Financial Transactions Report and AnalysisCenter (‘PPATK’) to block access to financial assets, for example.
According to Article 44 (g) of the Bill, the PPATK is, upon suspicion of money laundering, granted authority to block access to assets suspected of deriving from criminal acts. Meanwhile, Article 78 (4) of the Bill goes on to state that PPATK investigators cannot be held responsible - either in civil or criminal proceedings - for mistakenly suspecting transactions and blocking access to related assets.
Critics argue the so-called ‘immunity’ extended by that provision encourages the abuse of power.
To the contrary, the PPATK claimed in a 13 July 2010 press release that Articles 65 (2 – 4) of the Bill set out stringent requirements that must be met prior to preventing access to financial assets.
Among the requirements set out by Article 65 (2): the owner of the assets must remain unknown; there is a suspicion that the assets are the result of criminal acts, and; there is suspicion that the assets will be used to perpetrate a criminal act.
Furthermore, Article 65 (3) merely allows a 90 day timeframe for prevented access to the assets - enough time, presumably, for other institutions (e.g., the Corruption Eradication Commission) to respond. Article 65 (4) obliges that the blockage be publicly informed, presumably for transparency purposes.
As for ‘immunity,’ the PPATK asserted that these rights are already supported by Article 50 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, which protects agencies from being penalized when carrying out their legally-prescribed duties.
It remains unclear when the Bill will be passed into a law; it has however been included in the 2010 Prioritized National Legislation Program. An optimistic outlook is that the DPR will be able to meet the end-of-year deadline.
This Indonesian Legal Brief is based upon research conducted by hukumonline team.
The House of Representatives is currently drafting the Bill on Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering (“Bill”). Forwarded by the Government to the House of Representatives (DPR) for discussion in February this year, the Bill includes several controversial provisions; a hotly debated provision allowing the Financial Transactions Report and AnalysisCenter (‘PPATK’) to block access to financial assets, for example.
According to Article 44 (g) of the Bill, the PPATK is, upon suspicion of money laundering, granted authority to block access to assets suspected of deriving from criminal acts. Meanwhile, Article 78 (4) of the Bill goes on to state that PPATK investigators cannot be held responsible - either in civil or criminal proceedings - for mistakenly suspecting transactions and blocking access to related assets.
Critics argue the so-called ‘immunity’ extended by that provision encourages the abuse of power.
To the contrary, the PPATK claimed in a 13 July 2010 press release that Articles 65 (2 – 4) of the Bill set out stringent requirements that must be met prior to preventing access to financial assets.
Among the requirements set out by Article 65 (2): the owner of the assets must remain unknown; there is a suspicion that the assets are the result of criminal acts, and; there is suspicion that the assets will be used to perpetrate a criminal act.
Furthermore, Article 65 (3) merely allows a 90 day timeframe for prevented access to the assets - enough time, presumably, for other institutions (e.g., the Corruption Eradication Commission) to respond. Article 65 (4) obliges that the blockage be publicly informed, presumably for transparency purposes.
As for ‘immunity,’ the PPATK asserted that these rights are already supported by Article 50 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, which protects agencies from being penalized when carrying out their legally-prescribed duties.
It remains unclear when the Bill will be passed into a law; it has however been included in the 2010 Prioritized National Legislation Program. An optimistic outlook is that the DPR will be able to meet the end-of-year deadline.
This Indonesian Legal Brief is based upon research conducted by hukumonline team.
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Professional Solutions
University Solutions
Pro
My Workspace
Pro AI
Terfavorit
Allex QnA
Pro Compliance
