The Audit Board (BPK) has authority under the Constitution to assess administrative state losses caused by treasurers and to apply a strict liability principle for reparations. In contrast, anti-corruption courts handle corruption cases and rule on a certain amount of state losses; they declare monetary compensation as an additional punitive measure. This study employs a normative legal approach to analyze the discrepancies in assessing the amount of state losses between the two institutions. These disparities impede the effectiveness of recovery of state losses, leading to higher transaction and opportunity costs. This study reveals that the divergence stems from differing methodological approaches: BPK adopts an administrative approach centered on compensation, whereas the courts emphasize punitive measures. This study proposes a multi-track enforcement model as a conceptual solution. It is justified by the cumulative sanctions theory and Article 62 of the State Treasury Law, which provides a legal basis for the simultaneous application of both administrative and criminal sanctions without violating the so-called ne bis in idem principle. This model ensures that criminal verdicts do not relieve the doer of the obligation to compensate for the loss declared by the BPK. Such an approach is essential to accelerate asset recovery, reinforce deterrence, and uphold the integrity of state finances as a top priority in public financial management.

The purpose of this article is to describe criminal policies regarding the implementation of Non Conviction Based Forfeiture of Stolen Assets Recovery (NCB), which is a mechanism for confiscating the proceeds of criminal acts of corruption from corruptors without a criminal justice process. By using a normative study with a statutory approach and a case approach, namely the Asset Confiscation Draft Law (RUU), Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to the Corruption Eradication Law, Law Number 7 of 2006 concerning Ratification of United Nations Convention Against Corruption and Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning ITE. This article is based on research with the first results, this concept aims to restore State losses incurred as a result of crime without first imposing a crime on the perpetrator. There are 2 types of confiscation in question, namely in personam (criminal forfeiture) and in rem confiscation, namely civil forfeiture, civil forfeiture and Non Conviction Based (NCB) asset forfeiture with a lawsuit against assets not against people. This requires proof that a property has been contaminated by criminal activity. However, in practice, this criminal policy does not work optimally with civil justice but is created separately.

The global economy is undergoing significant shifts, requiring organizations to develop resilience and agility to navigate a volatile business environment marked by crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, and globalisation. This study examines the resilience of Turkish manufacturing companies following two major crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2023 earthquake. The research aims to enhance the formulation of comprehensive strategies by implementing strategic agility dimensions to support firms' survival and growth. The study employed a quantitative research design, drawing on secondary data from 100 manufacturing companies listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange, with financial data from 2021 to 2024. Of these companies, 17 were family-owned, while 82 were non-family-owned, and 125 patents were issued during the period (2021–2023). Using descriptive analysis, paired and independent tests, and regression analysis, the study assessed key financial performance indicators, including net profit margin growth rate, profit growth rate, sales growth rate, and asset growth rate. The results indicate that companies exhibited similar recoveries in sales and net profit from the COVID-19 pandemic and the earthquake. However, the two crisis periods observed significant differences in profit margins and net assets. Moreover, family-owned and non-family-owned firms displayed distinct recovery patterns, particularly on net asset and profit margin recovery, while no significant differences were found in net profit and sales performance between the two groups. This study provides valuable insights into the resilience of manufacturing firms in crisis conditions and underscores the importance of strategic agility for sustaining business growth during periods of volatility.

The article provides a systematic legal analysis of the role of Ukraine’s judicial and law-enforcement bodies in the implementation of anti-corruption policy in the context of the state’s European integration commitments. On the basis of the Constitution of Ukraine, special anti-corruption legislation, the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021–2025, as well as empirical data of judicial statistics and international assessments, it examines the transformation of the institutional architecture of anti-corruption efforts – from a fragmented model to a specialized multi-level infrastructure. The article outlines the legal status and functional specificity of the NACP as the centre for preventive policy, NABU as a body for pre-trial investigation of high-level corruption, SAPO as the core of prosecutorial guidance, HACC as a specialized court authorised to adjudicate particularly complex corruption cases and cases on unexplained assets, as well as the SBI, the prosecution service, the National Police and courts of general jurisdiction as elements that ensure the delineation of investigative jurisdiction and the maintenance of public prosecution. It is shown that, despite the institutional strengthening of anti-corruption bodies, conflicts and gaps in criminal-law and procedural regulation, inconsistency of judicial practice, staffing and resource constraints of specialized bodies, as well as risks of external influence on these institutions, still persist. It is argued that the further development of the anti-corruption infrastructure should be aimed at clarifying the boundaries of investigative jurisdiction, enhancing the capacity of the judiciary and pre-trial investigation bodies, improving mechanisms for asset recovery and protection of whistle-blowers, as well as deepening institutional integrity as a key criterion for the genuine implementation of the rule of law and Ukraine’s readiness for integration into the European legal space. Particular attention is paid to the functional division between preventive, investigative-prosecutorial and judicial components, which likewise requires coherent procedures for the detection, investigation and adjudication of corruption offences. The article emphasizes the importance of specialization of judges and prosecutors, the development of internal control systems and cooperation with civil society in order to foster a culture of zero tolerance for corruption.

This study examines the effectiveness of the Indonesia–Singapore extradition framework as a transnational law enforcement mechanism in combating corruption crimes with cross-border dimensions. The research is motivated by Indonesia’s longstanding challenges in recovering fugitives and assets located in Singapore, despite the existence of bilateral agreements and mutual legal assistance arrangements. Employing a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study analyzes the extradition treaty, implementing regulations, relevant case practices, and principles of international cooperation in criminal matters. The findings reveal that while the extradition framework provides a formal legal basis for cooperation, its practical implementation remains constrained by differences in legal systems, evidentiary standards, dual criminality requirements, and political considerations that may delay or impede extradition processes. Moreover, the effectiveness of extradition is closely linked to asset recovery mechanisms, which are not always synchronized with extradition procedures. The novelty of this study lies in its integrated analysis of extradition and transnational asset recovery within a single enforcement framework, highlighting the need for stronger procedural coordination and institutional synergy. This study recommends strengthening treaty implementation through clearer operational guidelines, enhanced mutual trust between law enforcement agencies, and closer alignment between extradition and asset recovery mechanisms to ensure effective, timely, and accountable transnational enforcement against corruption.

The research article is a critical appraisal of the legislative and institutional reforms that have been implemented by Pakistan due to strict requirements by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The main question is to assess whether the sweeping changes in the law that were implemented in 2018-2022 could be seen as a real change of the criminal justice system or rather a veneer of coercive compliance to be taken off the FATF greylist. This research has used a doctrinal research design where primary legal documents such as the Anti-Money laundering Act (AMLA) 2010, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997, and the Companies Act 2017 have been analyzed, along with the case law and FATF Mutual Evaluation Reports. The central results suggest a sharp dichotomy, i.e. Pakistan has been very successful at the realization of de jure, such that the legal framework developed is mostly technically in line with international standards. Nonetheless, de facto effectiveness is not attainable because of institutional pathologies. The study determines that there are bottlenecks that are critical such as the lack of an intact intelligence pipeline at the Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU), lack of jurisdiction between the federal agencies (FIA/NAB) and the provincial police, and a weak judicial system that was not effectively suited to handle complex financial adjudication. The conclusion of the article is that the hardware of the system (laws and special courts) has been modernized, but the software (specific skills, political will, and inter-agency coordination) is in the past. Sustainable compliance needs to be more proactive institutional re-engineering, that is, the establishment of a National Financial Crime Agency (NFCA) and a Civil Asset Recovery regime.

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of individual sanctions on corporate rights and the governance of business entities in Ukraine. The research focuses on two key types of sanctions – asset freezing and asset recovery to the state – which have the most significant influence on corporate structures and the functioning of companies. The author argues that corporate rights, as a specific category of assets, combine both property and managerial components, which makes their restriction particularly complex. The study demonstrates that freezing a participant’s share effectively blocks the exercise of voting rights and creates managerial paralysis, as decisions requiring a qualified majority or unanimity become impossible. The article examines the challenges of managing corporate rights after assets are seized for the benefit of the state. It is established that the temporal gaps between the court decision and the actual transfer of rights, as well as the uncertainty regarding the appointment of an asset manager, create significant risks for the company, including the inability to conclude major transactions. The study highlights potential conflicts of interest that may arise when corporate rights are transferred to competing market participants and substantiates the need for legislative regulation of the criteria of good faith and independence of asset managers. The article separately addresses the impact of sanctions prohibiting the acquisition of land plots imposed on individuals who are the ultimate beneficial owners of legal entities. It is emphasized that sanctions are strictly individual in nature, and the assets of a legal entity cannot be treated as the assets of an individual for the purposes of sanctions regulation, which excludes any automatic extension of restrictions to the legal entity. The study concludes by emphasizing the urgent need to improve sanctions and corporate legislation in order to ensure a balance between private and public interests, the stability of corporate governance, and the effective protection of national security.

Financial gain is the ‘heart’ of environmental crimes, making the most effective strategy to halt them the ‘impoverishment’ of perpetrators through asset forfeiture. The Asset Recovery Agency of the Attorney General’s Office of Indonesia constitutes one of the authorities responsible for asset forfeiture, including natural resources and environmental substances. However, normatively, this institution still operates as if handling ordinary cases, resulting in fundamental weaknesses in managing environmental assets that require specialized authority, rapid response, and an ecological recovery paradigm. This research aims to optimize forfeiture by the Asset Recovery Agency in terms of legal substance, institutional structure, and legal culture, particularly with an ecological basis. The research is normative, employing a statutory approach to criminal and environmental laws, as well as a comparative study with Thailand to examine the structuring of the Management Bureau within the Anti-Money Laundering Office as an asset recovery institution using a non-conviction-based forfeiture (NCB) approach. The research shows that, first, the assessment of regulations under the criminal and environmental regimes remains ineffective in terms of substance, structure, and legal culture. Second, Thailand has proven effective in implementing an environmental crime asset recovery model through the NCB mechanism and a harmonized internal structure of the Asset Management Bureau. Third, optimization can be achieved by designing a Criminal Asset Forfeiture Act, adopting Thailand’s institutional asset recovery mechanisms, and reformulating the central fiscal recovery paradigm with a green earning approach.

This study examines the effectiveness of restorative justice as an alternative approach to traditional punitive measures in handling corruption cases. While punitive approaches emphasise deterrence through imprisonment and fines, restorative justice focuses on accountability, reparation, and reintegration. The study is grounded in Restorative Justice Theory, which emphasises repairing harm and fostering offenders’ accountability. Using a qualitative research methodology, the study analyses case studies, policy evaluations, and expert interviews to assess the implementation and impact of restorative justice in corruption cases. Thematic analysis is applied to identify patterns in asset recovery, voluntary disclosures, and public trust in anti-corruption institutions. Findings indicate that restorative justice can enhance transparency, increase asset recovery rates, and encourage whistleblowing. However, challenges such as political interference, legal constraints, and public perceptions of leniency hinder its effectiveness. The study concludes that while restorative justice is not a standalone solution, it serves as a valuable complement to punitive measures. Strengthening legal frameworks and institutional safeguards can enhance its role in anti-corruption efforts, making justice systems more inclusive and effective.

The emergence of digital and virtual assets has created new challenges for tax authorities, as taxpayers now possess not only traditional but also digital assets that can be accessed globally through the internet. This unconventional form of asset ownership raises questions about how tax authorities can effectively confiscate and liquidate crypto-assets to resolve tax liabilities. The lack of these mechanisms complicates tax administration and criminal law enforcement in the digital era. This study aims to examine the possibility of confiscating digital and virtual assets for tax purposes within Indonesia’s asset recovery framework. Using a comparative law approach, this article analyzes the potential use of crypto-asset confiscation for the settlement of tax arrears by referencing the latest European Union regulations on asset recovery and confiscation, particularly the Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament and Council on asset recovery and confiscation. The analysis shows that Indonesia currently lacks a system that enables the confiscation and recovery of digital assets for tax enforcement. Considering the shared civil law foundations and similar challenges faced by EU countries, the EU’s model provides a relevant reference point. Indonesia should consider adopting the European Union’s methodology for seizing and recovering digital assets to enhance its legal framework. Implementing the asset recovery and confiscation mechanisms established under Directive (EU) 2024/1260 could serve as a paradigm for Indonesia to efficiently confiscate taxpayers’ assets and strengthen tax compliance in the digital economy.

This article investigates contemporary mechanisms for the international tracing, identification, and recovery of assets illicitly transferred beyond national jurisdictions. It analyzes international and national legal frameworks, the roles of key actors involved in cross-border asset tracing—including the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the State Financial Monitoring Service, and the Office of the Prosecutor General. As well as international platforms and initiatives such as StAR, CARIN, Open Ownership, and the Interpol Global Focal Point Initiative. The study examines practical tools for effective asset recovery, including parallel investigations and joint investigative teams (JITs), their legal regulation, and challenges in national legislation, particularly conflicts related to JIT formation. Legislative improvements are proposed, including expanding the powers of Deputy Prosecutors General and regional prosecutors to establish JITs, thereby enhancing the efficiency of international cooperation in asset recovery. The research applies a comprehensive combination of general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison) and specialized legal approaches (comparative law and formal-legal methods), alongside systemic and functional approaches. System analysis and content analysis of both national and international practices and normative documents were also utilized. The study identifies and evaluates existing international and national mechanisms for asset tracing and recovery, systematizes the activities of key actors and international cooperation platforms, analyzes legislative challenges in regulating joint investigative teams, and proposes measures for their improvement. Practical recommendations for effective application of existing tools in criminal proceedings are developed. Effective asset tracing, identification, and recovery require a multi-dimensional approach, including close coordination between national and international authorities, the use of financial intelligence and international cooperation platforms, and the implementation of parallel investigations and joint investigative teams. Legislative amendments expanding the authorities empowered to establish JITs are recommended to enhance the efficiency of international cooperation in asset recovery.

Eradicating corruption solely by prosecuting and imposing imprisonment on perpetrators does not fully resolve the problem if the assets obtained from corrupt practices cannot be recovered by the state for development purposes. Therefore, the recovery of assets resulting from corruption becomes a crucial aspect of combating corruption. This study uses a normative legal research method, which emphasizes document studies or literature research. The substance of the asset recovery legal system through criminal law consists of four stages: asset tracing, asset freezing or confiscation, asset seizure, and the return and transfer of assets to the victim state. Efforts to recover state losses caused by corruption cases through asset recovery include seizing and tracing the assets of defendants or convicts, ensuring that convicts pay compensation, encouraging public support for anti-corruption initiatives, improving facilities and infrastructure for corruption eradication, and clearly regulating—based on applicable laws—the authority of KPK prosecutors and public prosecutors appointed and dismissed by the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Abstract This paper explores the hypothesis that the limited effectiveness and low efficiency of the European transnational asset recovery system may contribute to the internationalisation of organised crime. Whilst individual EU Member States demonstrate relative success in recovering illicit assets at the national level, the cross-border judicial framework—primarily governed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1805—shows limited practical application and significant inefficiencies. Data from the European Commission indicate that few confiscation and freezing orders are exchanged or executed between Member States. Insights from the EU-funded RECOVER project, which involves law enforcement agencies, Ministries of Justice, and research centres across ten EU countries, further highlight these shortcomings through data and expert opinions. This paper argues that such deficiencies could serve as an incentive for the internationalisation of organised crime in Europe and potentially beyond. By identifying specific obstacles within the EU’s asset recovery framework, the paper aims to clarify relevant policy implications and propose recommendations to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of cross-border asset recovery mechanisms within Europe. Similar challenges may exist in other regions as well, given that the effectiveness and efficiency of asset recovery systems are likely amongst the most impactful measures for mitigating organised crime worldwide.

In Brazil’s major urban centres, auto and cargo theft constitute a vibrant illicit economy. Many of these assets are insured, and a vast array of private security providers operate to recover stolen goods on behalf of insurance companies. Drawing on ethnographic research with both major insurers and small players in this protection market, this paper examines how financial institutions navigate high-risk urban environments and sheds light on the effects of the financialization of security. It argues that, beyond actuarial rationality, the everyday practices of insurance governance also rely on the outsourcing of violence and on the entrepreneurialization of the public forces of order. In addition to offering advertised services such as risk analysis, armed escort, investigation and asset recovery, these entrepreneurs of violence specialize in operating within the grey areas between legality and illegality, and between public and private authority.

Only a handful of states have been actively pursuing the enforcement of foreign bribery. Switzerland is one of them and its efforts to crack down on this offence is commendable. Between 2011 and 2024, Switzerland issued 14 final judicial orders at a federal level against Swiss-linked companies that engaged in foreign bribery. In these proceedings, the companies were ordered to hand over approximately CHF 730 million (combined) in illicit profits that they had obtained through their foreign bribery schemes, and an additional CHF 30 million in fines. This Policy Brief contends that Switzerland could further leverage this success to reinforce its status as a world anti-corruption leader. It examines how Switzerland could repurpose the illicit profits obtained from companies in foreign bribery cases to benefit the countries and people most affected by these corrupt acts and to enhance global anti-corruption efforts. It outlines arguments as to why Switzerland should consider legislative action to enable the sharing of these profits in this way and the potential methodology for doing so. About this Policy Brief This publication is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Policy Brief series, ISSN 2624-9669. You may freely share or republish it under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence. Suggested citation: Dornbierer, Andrew. 2025. ‘Rethinking how Switzerland uses illicit profits from foreign bribery settlements.’ Policy Brief 15, Basel Institute on Governance. Available at: baselgovernance.org/publications/pb-15. This Policy Brief is based on the executive summary of the Working Paper 59: ‘Using corrupt proceeds to fight corruption: Rethinking how Switzerland uses illicit profits from foreign bribery.' Available at: baselgovernance.org/publications/wp-59. This is a publication of the International Centre for Asset Recovery (ICAR) at the Basel Institute on Governance. ICAR receives core funding from the Governments of Jersey, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and the UK.

Only a handful of states have been actively pursuing the enforcement of foreign bribery. Switzerland is one of them and its efforts to crack down on this offence is commendable. Between 2011 and 2024, Switzerland issued 14 final judicial orders at a federal level against Swiss-linked companies that engaged in foreign bribery. In these proceedings, the companies were ordered to hand over approximately CHF 730 million (combined) in illicit profits that they had obtained through their foreign bribery schemes, and an additional CHF 30 million in fines. This paper contends that Switzerland could further leverage this success to reinforce its status as a world anti-corruption leader. It examines how Switzerland could repurpose the illicit profits obtained from companies in foreign bribery cases to benefit the countries and people most affected by these corrupt acts and to enhance global anti-corruption efforts. It outlines arguments as to why Switzerland should consider legislative action to enable the sharing of these profits in this way and the potential methodology for doing so. About this Working Paper This paper is published as part of the Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper series, ISSN: 2624-9650. You may share or republish it under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International Licence. This is a publication of the International Centre for Asset Recovery (ICAR) at the Basel Institute on Governance. ICAR receives core funding from the Governments of Jersey, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. The contents are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Basel Institute on Governance, its donors and partners, or the University of Basel. Suggested citation: Dornbierer, Andrew. 2025. ‘Using corrupt proceeds to fight corruption: Rethinking how Switzerland uses illicit profits from foreign bribery.’ Working Paper 59, Basel Institute on Governance. Available at: baselgovernance.org/publications/wp-59.

The benchmark for success in eradicating corruption is currently not only measured by how many perpetrators are punished, but by how much state financial loss has been recovered. So that the eradication of criminal acts does not only follow the suspect but also prioritizes the principle of follow the money and follow the asset. The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the legal rules in the confiscation of assets of corruption convicts and determine the ideal rules to regulate asset confiscation in the future. This legal research uses a normative juridical legal research approach method, namely legal research conducted by examining library materials or secondary data as basic materials for research by conducting searches of regulations and literature related to the problems being researched. Corruption comes from the Latin word “corruption” which means damage or decay. Corruption is a crime included in Extra Ordinary Crime category and is one of its serious impacts is harming state finances. The Corruption Eradication Law explicitly mandates efforts to carry out asset recovery actions against assets resulting from corruption. This is regulated in the provisions of Article 18 of the Corruption Eradication Law which explains that perpetrators of corruption can be subject to additional penalties in the form of confiscation of tangible or intangible movable goods or immovable goods used for or obtained from corruption, including companies owned by convicts where corruption is committed, as well as goods that replace these goods. This can be the basis for law enforcement officers to carry out asset recovery efforts. The concept of asset recovery is closely related to asset tracing, and both must be carried out simultaneously and cannot run alone. It is hoped that the government can immediately draft and ratify legislation that specifically regulates the implementation of asset recovery, especially in the eradication of criminal acts of corruption.

Corruption is considered an extraordinary crime that has a negative impact on the economy, state stability, and public trust, damaging governance, public services, development, and social inequality. Based on Law Number 46 of 2009 concerning the Corruption Court, corruption cases must be tried in the Special Corruption Court within its jurisdiction. The focus of the study is to explain how the death penalty for corruption is constructed in the concept of legal certainty and how the depenalization of the threat of the death penalty for perpetrators of corruption are based on the value of justice. The purpose of this study is to determine and analyze the construction of the death penalty and the form of de-escalation of the threat of the death penalty for perpetrators of corruption. The research used a normative method (normative law research) and a normative case study in the form of legal behavior products and data obtained through literature studies. Emphasis was placed on secondary data consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. Related to the context of legal certainty, the structure of the death penalty for corruption shows a significant discrepancy between the written legal standards and the applied judicial practices. According to Article 2 Paragraph 2 of Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption, perpetrators of corruption can be sentenced to death in several cases. However, the word “can” used in the provision indicates that the application of the death penalty is optional and not mandatory. Based on the value of justice, the depenalization policy is not always effective in protecting perpetrators of corruption from the threat of the death penalty. Because the death penalty is often considered inhumane and does not guarantee a reduction in the level of corruption, this policy is considered to better reflect human rights and substantive justice. Depenalization allows for a more constructive and reformist approach by emphasizing the recovery of state assets, prevention, and proportional punishment.

The rapid expansion of globalization has significantly increased cross-border economic activities, intensifying legal complexities in insolvency cases involving multinational entities. In Indonesia, Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations governs domestic insolvency but lacks explicit provisions addressing cross-border insolvency. This regulatory gap exposes Indonesian creditors to heightened legal uncertainty and potential financial losses, particularly when debtor assets are located abroad and foreign ‎proceedings are not recognized domestically.‎ This paper critically examines the extent of legal protection afforded to Indonesian creditors in cross-border insolvency scenarios. ‎It evaluates the relevance and potential adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as a framework for reform. ‎Through a comparative analysis of Indonesia’s legal regime with that of Singapore and the Philippines, both of which have adopted the ‎Model Law. The study underscores the benefits of harmonized international insolvency procedures. Findings reveal that Indonesia’s current ‎reliance on reciprocity and ad hoc recognition mechanisms undermines predictability, judicial cooperation, and creditor confidence.‎ The study concludes by advocating for Indonesia’s adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law to align its insolvency framework ‎with global standards. Such a reform would improve cross-border asset recovery, enhance creditor protection, and foster a more stable and ‎attractive investment environment‎.

The death of a corruption suspect before a final and legally binding court judgment creates a fundamental juridical paradox that paralyzes the Indonesian criminal justice system. On one hand, the state loses its instruments for recovering losses due to its reliance on the conviction-based asset forfeiture paradigm. On the other hand, seized assets are trapped in a state of uncertainty, injuring the public’s sense of justice while simultaneously threatening the civil rights of the heirs. This research aims to analyze this normative vacuum (rechtsvacuüm) critically and, as its culmination, to formulate a concrete, implementable legal reconstruction of law as it ought to be (ius constituendum). Using a normative legal research method grounded in statutory, conceptual, and critical comparative approaches, this study finds that the current juridical dead end is at odds with Radbruch’s three basic legal values: justice, certainty, and utility. As a solution, this research proposes a paradigm shift toward the NCB asset forfeiture model, operationalized through a procedural blueprint in the form of a special civil lawsuit. Based on a critical synthesis of international practices, a hybrid model is designed—termed the “Civil-Based Asset Status Examination”—which adopts the flexibility of the civil law tradition while strictly guaranteeing due process of law. The final result is a concrete normative formulation capable of reconciling the state’s interest in asset recovery with the protection of human rights, while simultaneously offering a progressive step in the renewal of criminal procedure law in Indonesia.