Objective: This paper attempts to compare the law between Indonesia and The United States of America regarding the mechanism of asset forfeiture in the context of criminal law. In Indonesia, several criminal law provisions already regulate the possibility of confiscating and forfeiting the proceeds of criminal acts. However, under these provisions, asset forfeiture can only be carried out after the perpetrator of the criminal act is legally and convincingly proven to have committed a criminal act. The Asset Forfeiture Draft Law the text of which is just about to be submitted to parliament can bridge the norm of illicit enrichment or improperly obtained wealth, which is actually set out in the UN Convention Against Corruption, but not yet in Indonesian law.   Theoretical framework: To present Indonesian and U.S. experience in regulating the possibility of confiscating and forfeiting the proceeds and instruments of criminal acts. It takes a complete and comprehensive normative juridical approach to asset forfeiture law, presents theoretical elaboration from international scientific publications, reports, and empirical studies. This paper presents a comparison between Indonesian and United States law regarding the forfeiture of assets resulting from money laundering. The United States has been the initiator of the Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture mechanism. As a result of applying the concept of Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture, the United States has benefited by being able to recover state losses suffered due to corruption without having to go through criminal proceedings. Thus, it has been able to minimize state losses occurring due to corruption.   Methodology: There have been many studies examining asset forfeiture in various countries, but no study has been found thus far which adequately describes the norms and implementation of laws Indonesian and United States laws, respectively. It is important for Indonesia to understand the United States’ experienc Miami| v.11, n. 12| pages: 01-33| e01712 |2023. JOURNAL OF LAW AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Sofian, A., Pratama, B., Azizah, A. (2023). Mechanism For Asset Forfeiture In The Money Loundering Criminal Law And Asset Forfeiture Bill (Law Comparison With The United States) 4 to the present time, the draft of the Asset Forfeiture Draft Law is yet to be submitted by the government to the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia. It was reported earlier that the text of the Asset Forfeiture Draft Law was going to be sent to the House of Representatives immediately as all of its substantive materials had been agreed upon by ministers and heads of institutions and it had been initialed. (Republika, May 3, 2023). The mechanism of asset forfeiture was invented in medieval England when the British empire confiscated items that were considered instruments of a death or often referred to as Deodand. Deode's concept was eventually adopted by Miami| v.11, n. 12| pages: 01-33| e01712 |2023. JOURNAL OF LAW AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Sofian, A., Pratama, B., Azizah, A. (2023). Mechanism For Asset Forfeiture In The Money Loundering Criminal Law And Asset Forfeiture Bill (Law Comparison With The United States) 8 forfeiture of assets and they can be used independently or in conjunction with each other. (Bechara &; Manzano, 2020:5-6). Worrall & Kovandzic, 2008 mention, the possibility of police supporting tough law enforcement against drug offenses based on hidden motives such as profit motives through asset forfeiture or boosting the number of arrests to get promotions (Jorgensen, 2018: 2). Iin fact, asset forfeiture does not guarantee the return of confiscated property to the rightful owner, so the government can actually keep cash and confiscated property (regardless of whether the asset is personal or tangible), sell the property or use it to fund a number of activities. Asset forfeiture consists of three basic steps, namely: identification, forfeiture, and custody. The first step in asset forfeiture is to identify the res. (United States Attorneys, 2019:10). Following forfeiture, it is the respons ibility of the government to keep the property safe and to carry out individual actions related to the forfeiture. (Bechara &; Manzano, 2020:6-7). From the perspective of the law on the forfeiture of proceeds of crime (including currency), criminals are unable to benefit from their crime (Hamin et al., 2015). Forfeiture of proceeds is referred to as the application of procedures prohibiting the transfer, conversion, disposition, or movement of criminally acquired property or assets, allowing competent autho rities or courts to control them ('Basic Manual on Detection and Investigation of Laundering of Proceeds of Crime Using Virtual Currency', 2014). In the policy manual published by the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), the forfeiture of proceeds of crime is intended to punish and deter criminal activities, as well as compensate victims (Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual, 2021). This method is effective for crime prevention, prosecution, and administration of justice ('Basic Manual on Detection and Investigation of Laundering Proceeds of Crime Using Virtual Currency', 2014). (Taylor, et.al., 2022:6). Zollner et al. (2019) combine live forensics and postmortem to analyze Bitcoin artifacts on Windows 7 and 10. Their goal is to find and extract important Bitcoin artifacts, such as Bitcoin keys and addresses. They then identified that this information could be used for asset forfeiture in proceeds of criminal legislation (Holmes & Buchanan, 2023:6, Subagyono, et.al., 2023:4 ). The unintended negative effects of the forfeiture of operational assets are mitigated when local institutions can supplement the forfeiture measures with initiatives intended to reduce uncertainty and fill the void left by criminal organizations. (Operti, 2018: 332). Critics question the appropria teness, scope