<![CDATA[Criminal prosecution involving fiduciary security objects in Indonesia frequently encounters a normative conflict between Article 372 of the Indonesian Penal Code as lex generalis and Article 36 of Law Number 42 of 1999 as lex specialis. The ambiguity surrounding the “Fiduciary Grantor” element generates interpretive disparities across courts that directly erode legal certainty. This study aims to analyze the normative conflict between both provisions and to evaluate the Supreme Court’s application of evidentiary law in Decision Number 2319 K/Pid.Sus/2024. This research employs a normative juridical method using four complementary approaches: statute, conceptual, case, and internal jurisprudential comparison. Primary legal materials include the Indonesian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Law Number 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security, Sukabumi District Court Decision Number 130/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Skb, and Supreme Court Decision Number 2319 K/Pid.Sus/2024. The analysis proceeds qualitatively and prescriptively through inventory, interpretation, normative conflict analysis, ratio decidendi evaluation, and recommendation formulation. The study finds that Article 36 of the Fiduciary Security Law functions as lex specialis to Article 372 of the Indonesian Penal Code across three dimensions: subject, object, and modus operandi. The disparity between Sukabumi District Court’s acquittal and the Supreme Court’s reversal stems from formalistic-literal versus substantive-functional interpretation of “Fiduciary Grantor,” ambiguity in Article 1 paragraph 5, and an absence of authoritative technical evidentiary guidelines from the Supreme Court. The study recommends issuance of a Supreme Court Circular Letter or Regulation as a technical guideline covering substantive interpretation of “Fiduciary Grantor,” affirmation of the lex specialis principle, and the evidentiary standard for mens rea. Limited revision of Article 1 paragraph 5 is also proposed. This study integrates lex specialis normative-conflict analysis with the evaluation of judicial disparity through the triadic framework of legal certainty offered by Radbruch, Fuller, and Otto. The approach moves beyond prior research that examined single elements in isolation and positions Supreme Court Decision Number 2319 K/Pid.Sus/2024 as a landmark Indonesian fiduciary evidentiary precedent.]]>
