The development of the business world and the increasing need for financing have
encouraged the use of fiduciary guarantees as a legal instrument in credit agreements.
However, in practice, fiduciary guarantee disputes are resolved not only through civil law
but also through criminal law. This study aims to analyze the legal consequences of using
criminal law and civil law in resolving fiduciary guarantee disputes and to compare the
effectiveness of both mechanisms. The research method used is normative juridical, with a
statutory regulatory approach and case studies. The results indicate that settlement through
civil law provides legal certainty and proportional protection for the parties, although the
process is relatively lengthy. Meanwhile, criminal law provides a deterrent effect and a
faster process, but does not directly recover creditor losses. Therefore, criminal law should
be used as an ultimum remedium.