<![CDATA[Introduction: The provision of information that is not in accordance with the facts in the formation of a fiduciary guarantee can cause criminal problems when the information becomes the basis for the birth of a financing relationship and causes losses for creditors. Legal problems arise in determining the boundary between contractual failure and criminal acts and proving the intentionality of the perpetrator based on Article 35 of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. Purposes of the Research: This study aims to analyze the factors behind the provision of incorrect information and examine the construction of the legal considerations of the Panel of Judges in Decision Number: 54/Pid.Sus/2025/PN.Tjk, especially regarding the fulfillment of the elements of criminal acts and criminal responsibility of the defendant. Methods of the Research: The research uses a normative-empirical juridical method. The normative approach is carried out through the analysis of laws and regulations, court decisions, doctrine, and legal theory, while the empirical approach is carried out through interviews with law enforcement officials related to the case. The data is analyzed qualitatively by linking empirical facts with the construction of applicable criminal norms. Results Main Findings of the Research: The research shows that the criminal act in the case is influenced by the interaction of internal factors in the form of intentionality, active role, profit orientation, and low legal compliance with external factors in the form of opportunities in financing mechanisms and the vulnerability of trust-based fiduciary relationships. The judge's consideration rests on the suitability of evidence, the fulfillment of the elements of Article 35, the defendant's mistakes, and the philosophical and sociological considerations of the offense. Conclusion: Criminal liability in this case is mainly determined by the relationship between incorrect information, the birth of financing approvals, the intentionality of the defendant, and the creditor's losses. Therefore, fiduciary law enforcement requires not only formal proof of false information, but also arguments regarding the causal relationship with the birth of the agreement and the criminal fault of the perpetrator.]]>
