Seizure of Assets Owned by Sandra Dewi and Harvey Moeis Despite Separation of Property Agreement, This is the View of Legal Practitioners

Kapanlagi.com - The case of Sandra Dewi's husband, Harvey Moeis, still attracts a lot of attention. From the investigation by the Indonesian Attorney General's Office, several assets owned by Harvey, such as luxury cars, luxury watches, houses, and gold bars, have been seized.

Until now, further investigation is still being conducted regarding Harvey's other assets related to the alleged criminal acts. Not only that, there is a possibility that Sandra Dewi's assets will also be seized despite the separation of property agreement.

1. The Agreement Must be Recorded

©KapanLagi.com/Irfan Kafril

In relation to this matter, legal practitioner, James Tambunan, SH, MH, also expressed his views. According to him, the issue of prenuptial or during-marriage property separation agreements must be recorded.

"Referring to the fundamental Marriage Law, it is clearly regulated regarding prenuptial agreements or property separation, which can be made before the marriage is conducted or during the marriage period," said James Tambunan when met in Jakarta recently.

"It must be recorded because it will determine the assets brought by the husband or wife, or the inheritance passed down to the husband or wife," he continued.

2. Assets Must be Traced

He also explained that if the assets belong to Sandra Dewi but were obtained during the marriage period, it will be examined whether there were any hidden efforts in the process. This includes determining whether the assets or properties are wedding gifts. It will be traced whether they were obtained through illegal means or not.

"Whether the assets were obtained outside of the marital property or not. Or acquired during the marriage period, it will be analyzed whether there were any hidden efforts, whether there was good intention or not," he said.

"Regarding wedding gifts, it can be proven whether they were obtained through illegal means or not. If they were purely obtained through legitimate efforts, there is no problem. But if there is evidence that the assets were acquired illegally and are related to a case, then the Attorney General's Office is very relevant to carry out confiscation," he concluded.

(kpl/irf/dwn)