Ex-Post Judicial Authorization in the Seizure of Urgent Movable Corporate Assets under the New Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP): A Critical Analysis of Preventive Judicial Scrutiny and Corporate Asset Risk Mitigation Strategy

Abstract

The ratification of the New Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is a monumental formal legal reform in Indonesia, publicly positioned to strengthen the core principles of Due Process of Law and the protection of Human Rights. However, this study critically examines a paradoxical provision within the new code: the mechanism for ex-post judicial authorization for the seizure of movable corporate assets in "urgent circumstances" (Article 112A). Utilizing normative legal research with a conceptual approach, the study analyzes the provision against constitutional norms and procedural fairness doctrines. The primary finding reveals that Article 112A, by allowing action before judicial review, functionally eliminates the essential filter of preventive Judicial Scrutiny. This procedural weakness creates an elevated legal and operational risk for corporations, exposing them to sudden asset freezing which severely impacts liquidity, working capital, and digital assets. Although the new KUHAP broadens the scope of Pre-trial motions (Praperadilan) to include challenging bank blocking , this instrument is inherently reactive and fails to prevent initial damages. Therefore, the article concludes that a Judicial Review (Uji Materiil) of Article 112A is imperative. This review should demand an interpretation that mandates ex-ante judicial control for highly invasive seizures to ensure the substantive fulfillment of due process, while simultaneously urging corporate legal counsel to adopt aggressive, proactive litigation strategies through Praperadilan.