After days of public backlash, Indonesia’s Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) lifted the freeze on 28 million dormant bank accounts on Thursday (July 31, 2025).

The policy, meant to block illicit fund flows, instead triggered widespread anxiety among ordinary customers and entrepreneurs—underscoring the tension between financial oversight and public trust.

Budimanto, 48, was anxious when one of his bank accounts was suddenly frozen. The owner of a grocery shop in Ciputat, South Tangerang, said the account—held at a state-owned bank—contained around Rp20 million to Rp30 million.

He explained that the account was not his main one; he used it to keep emergency funds for purchasing raw materials. He admitted it was relatively rarely used for transactions, but said he was never informed that it would be frozen.

“When I went to withdraw money to buy stock, I couldn’t. And there was still money in it,” he told us on Sunday (August 3, 2025).

He later learned the freeze was imposed by PPATK to prevent the flow of funds linked to various crimes. Fortunately, by Sunday morning his account had been restored.

“Look into it first—don’t just freeze accounts. Do they think we’re criminals?” he said.

Another affected customer, Dona, 40, from Tanah Abang, Central Jakarta, found out her account was frozen when a friend tried to transfer money to her.

The funds were membership dues for a school event, for which Dona serves as a committee member.

“I was shocked when my friend said the account couldn’t be found, even though they’d entered the correct account number,” she said.

Related: The uproar over dormant-account freezes—how to navigate it.

She panicked and checked her mobile-banking app, which displayed a notice: “Your account can no longer be used.”

She was disappointed that there had been no prior notification to customers, noting the account still held around Rp4 million earmarked for the school event.

Dona acknowledged the frozen account was a secondary one, not her personal main savings account, but the freeze still left her uneasy.

“I’m worried the remaining balance will disappear. Even if I rarely use that account, there’s still money saved there,” she said.

She urged PPATK to stop freezing accounts in this manner, pointing out that many people maintain two accounts—one primary and one for savings.

“A savings account is naturally used less often, but it’s still there for emergencies,” she said.

Maintaining Public Confidence

PPATK spokesperson Natsir Kongah said the reopening of accounts previously frozen was based on customer complaints submitted via objection forms.

PPATK then re-verified the freezes one by one. If no link was found between an account and criminal activity—such as online gambling—the agency instructed banks to lift the freeze.

However, that generic explanation drew criticism from various quarters, including banking professionals. Bank BCA Chief Economist David Sumual said PPATK should conduct an in-depth study of the freezing mechanism before issuing such policies to avoid public uproar.

“PPATK must be more cautious when taking action, especially in freezing accounts, so as not to disturb public psychology,” he told SUAR in Jakarta (August 3).

He added that public confidence must be preserved so people do not lose trust in the banking sector. The way to do that, he said, is to conduct public outreach before making policy.

Looking ahead, PPATK should conduct socialization—through social media and online or print outlets—before announcing policies or decisions, he said.

Authorities should also avoid repeating the stop-start freezing of accounts. If a freeze is necessary, it should be clearly specified whose accounts will be affected, so the public does not become anxious.

Economist and 2023–2025 Vice Chair of the LPS (Indonesia Deposit Insurance Corporation) Board of Commissioners, Lana Soelistianingsih, argued that PPATK should not be the one freezing accounts; banks should act directly with their customers.

If PPATK does intend to freeze accounts, she said, it must first be socialized to the public because the issue is sensitive and prone to criticism.

Many holders of accounts inactive for three months, she noted, are housewives. They intentionally maintain separate accounts for business, household needs, or arisan (rotating savings groups).

Lana explained that the authority to open and close accounts lies with banks. PPATK’s role can be to monitor the banking sector without becoming directly involved. For example, if PPATK finds widespread dormancy, it can simply warn the banks.

Legal Basis

In fact, measures related to dormant accounts are set out in law. Under Law No. 10 of 1998 amending Law No. 7/1992 on Banking, a customer account may be classified as dormant if there is no transaction activity for a period determined by each bank—typically six or twelve consecutive months.

Provisions on dormant accounts are generally governed by banks’ internal policies and guided by prudential principles and consumer protection, as mandated by Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection and OJK Regulation No. 1 of 2013 on Consumer Protection in the Financial Services Sector.

A PPATK-ordered freeze of a dormant account may only be carried out with a clear legal basis—namely, suspicion that the account is involved in criminal activity as defined by prevailing laws and regulations—not merely because of its dormant status.