Asset Recovery in Corruption Cases: A Comparative Study of Indonesia and the United States

Abstract

This study examines asset recovery in corruption cases in Indonesia, analyzes the application of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) in the United States, and compares the legal approaches adopted by both countries. It employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Data are collected through document analysis of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials and analyzed qualitatively using deductive reasoning. The findings indicate that asset recovery in Indonesia remains suboptimal because law enforcement tends to prioritize criminal punishment over the recovery of state losses. Limited asset-tracing capacity, weaknesses in law enforcement integrity, and institutional challenges further constrain recovery efforts. In the United States, asset forfeiture mechanisms operate alongside DPAs, which allow prosecution to be deferred subject to specified obligations, including financial penalties, asset forfeiture, cooperation, and corporate compliance reforms. However, DPAs do not automatically guarantee asset recovery and may raise concerns about unequal treatment and corporate accountability. The comparison highlights the importance of integrating asset recovery measures with effective corporate prosecution mechanisms. In Indonesia, the statutory framework for DPAs under Article 328 of Law No. 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure provides an opportunity to strengthen corporate accountability and recovery outcomes. Its effectiveness, however, depends on judicial oversight, transparent conditions, proportionate sanctions, and enforceable recovery obligations. This study contributes to the comparative analysis of asset recovery and corporate criminal justice reform.