Yogyakarta, August 6, 2025 — The Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK)’s policy of freezing “idle” bank accounts has stirred controversy among the public. Tens of millions of accounts that have shown no activity in the past three months have been categorized as dormant or inactive. The freeze, according to PPATK, aims to prevent criminal misuse of inactive accounts for illegal activities such as money laundering and account trading.
Professor Dr. Wahyudi Kumorotomo, a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL), Universitas Gadjah Mada, described PPATK’s decision as a form of “brute-force” policy — a trial-and-error approach that fails to account for many important aspects. He noted that this is not the first time the government has issued underdeveloped policies. “Time and again, the people have witnessed that policies issued by the current administration are lacking in professionalism, and if such actions are allowed to recur, they risk further eroding the President’s legitimacy,” he stated.
The value of Indonesians’ bank accounts is significant. PPATK reported that the total value of the frozen accounts reached IDR 428.61 billion. Among these accounts, there are various legitimate reasons why they became inactive over the past three months — such as opening an account to take advantage of promotions, for bank service demonstrations, for social assistance disbursement, or simply because the account holder forgot they had opened it at a certain bank. These factors, Wahyudi emphasized, were overlooked by policymakers.
“There is indeed a risk of idle accounts being misused for online gambling proceeds or money laundering. But freezing accounts without considering the reasons behind their inactivity is not a wise move,” Wahyudi explained. He added that the government has been unable to apply Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) procedures effectively, which means the negative impacts of a policy are not anticipated early on. As a result, the public once again bears the cost of government decisions.
If the goal is to detect or prevent the misuse of accounts for illegal activities, Wahyudi suggested that PPATK should work with financial oversight institutions such as the Financial Services Authority (OJK) and the banking sector. There needs to be proper record-keeping and categorization of accounts based on their transaction history, from account opening to recent months. Such analysis would reveal whether freezing the account is truly necessary.
“The technology to identify such accounts should already be available, and banking institutions have complete customer data that could be used to trace idle accounts,” he said. Although millions of accounts have now been reinstated, he stressed that evaluation is still necessary. Policies should be implemented in a structured and deliberate manner. Account holders also have the right to transparency regarding their own accounts.
Wahyudi concluded by urging the government to improve its policy-making systems — not just in the case of account freezes. Well-considered decisions will lead to sound policy implementation with risk mitigation, eliminating the need for “blanket policies” or non-transparent decisions. Actions taken without thorough consideration, he warned, will only result in inefficiency and the decline of the government’s credibility and public standing.