Reconstructing Digital Fiduciary Execution: Debtor Protection, Certainty of Principal Payment, and Reform of Police Complaint Handling

Vehicle financing secured by fiduciary guarantees requires a balance between certainty of creditor recovery and protection of debtor rights. This article examines the legal problems of fiduciary execution, particularly payment arrears of about three months, which in practice are often read immediately as serious default, unilateral repossession, or suspected crime. Using normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, it draws on the Fiduciary Guarantee Law, the Civil Code, criminal procedure law, Financial Services Authority regulations, and Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The findings are that (1) default may not be determined unilaterally by the creditor, so a three-month arrear is a risk signal rather than an automatic trigger for execution; (2) principal, interest or margin, penalties, and fees must be traceable to the contract and payment records; (3) financing disputes must be distinguished from allegations of crime; and (4) CCTV, witnesses, and electronic documents have value only when verifiable and tested against other evidence. The article proposes the Digital Fiduciary Enforcement and Consumer Protection Model (DFECP), a process-and-evidence framework linking contracts, payment histories, arrears verification, electronic evidence, police complaints, and an enforcement gate in one audit trail. DFECP creates no new enforcement authority. The study is normative; empirical analysis of contract clauses and case files has not yet been done and is set out as a further research agenda.