Unpaid Restitution: What Role Does the Victim Endowment Fund Play?

Introduction

A judgment ordering restitution does not necessarily provide immediate recovery for a victim. Difficulties may arise when the convicted person fails to pay or available assets are insufficient. Meanwhile, the victim’s needs for treatment, assistance, and recovery continue.

Law No. 3 of 2026 on Witness and Victim Protection regulates the Victim Endowment Fund as a funding instrument for compensation and victim recovery. Understanding its benefits requires a distinction between an offender’s restitution obligation, state compensation, and victim recovery programmes.

Discussion

1. Restitution Is an Obligation That Must Be Enforced

Restitution is a payment of damages imposed on an offender or a third party under a final and binding court order or judgment. Recoverable losses include loss of property or income, suffering caused by the offence, and medical or psychological treatment costs.

Article 20 of Law No. 3 of 2026 permits the seizure of an offender’s assets as security for restitution with the authorisation of the district court chair, while respecting the rights of third parties acting in good faith. Article 21 also regulates the auction of assets seized as security where payment is not made as required.

The existence of victim recovery funding does not remove the need to pursue restitution payments. Recognition of a victim’s entitlement must be followed by asset tracing, securing assets, and enforcement through the available mechanisms.

2. What Is the Purpose of the Victim Endowment Fund?

Article 1(15) defines the Victim Endowment Fund as funding for compensation and victim recovery. Article 13 connects it to the endowment fund framework under the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Criminal Procedure Code, enacted through Law No. 20 of 2025, particularly Articles 187 and 188, establishes an endowment fund framework for damages, rehabilitation, restitution, and compensation, with further provisions to be set out in a government regulation.

Under the Witness and Victim Protection Law, the Victim Endowment Fund is managed by the ministry responsible for government affairs in finance. The proceeds of its management are utilised by LPSK. This division of responsibilities distinguishes financial management of the fund from the use of its proceeds to meet victims’ needs.

3. Funding Is Not Limited to the State Budget

Article 13(4) provides for several funding sources, including the state and regional budgets, a share of non-tax state revenue from law enforcement, criminal fines, proceeds from managing confiscated assets, corporate social and environmental responsibility funds, grants, philanthropy, and investment income.

However, the list does not establish that every source has already contributed or that a particular amount is available. State budget allocations are themselves linked to the state’s financial capacity.

For victims, the key question is how this funding translates into actual access to services. Governance, eligibility criteria, and distribution mechanisms are therefore as important as the fund’s legal basis.

4. What Does a Victim Receive If the Convicted Person’s Assets Are Insufficient?

Article 21(9) provides that where seized assets are insufficient to cover restitution, victims receive a recovery programme through the Victim Endowment Fund or a competent institution, based on an LPSK recommendation.

This provision cannot simply be equated with a guarantee that the entire restitution shortfall will be paid in cash. Compensation is regulated separately, including the categories of eligible victims under Article 23.

As a hypothetical illustration, a court awards IDR200 million in restitution, while available asset proceeds amount to only IDR50 million. The IDR150 million difference does not automatically become a cash payment from the Victim Endowment Fund solely by reference to Article 21(9). The applicable recovery support or compensation entitlement must be examined for that victim.

5. What Should Victims Consider?

Victims should document their losses and recovery needs from an early stage. Evidence of medical costs, lost income, psychological assessments, and copies of judgments can help explain the needs and rights being claimed.

Discussions with law enforcement and LPSK should address both enforcement of restitution obligations and access to appropriate recovery support. Applications, evidence, recommendations, and follow-up actions should be recorded so that the process does not stop at recognising an entitlement in a judgment.

The endowment fund provisions establish an important funding basis. However, access to benefits must follow the applicable rules and implementation mechanisms; the existence of legislation does not itself establish that every service or payment is already available.

Conclusion

The Victim Endowment Fund strengthens the basis for recovery where victims’ losses have not been addressed through restitution. Its benefits must be understood in accordance with the relevant rights, requirements, and mechanisms.

The focus is to secure accessible recovery for victims while continuing to pursue enforcement of offenders’ obligations. Restitution, compensation, and recovery programmes must be distinguished so that victims understand their options without receiving promises of payment unsupported by the law.