This study aimed to elucidate the jurisprudential foundations of the interplay and distinction between financial guarantee (daman) and criminal liability in contractual crimes, providing a framework for identifying instances of convergence or separation between these two responsibilities. The research method was analytical-descriptive, relying on sources from Imamiyyah jurisprudential reasoning (ijtihadi fiqh). The findings indicate that the origin of the distinction lies in the difference in their ultimate purpose and foundations: the purpose of financial guarantee is to compensate for private loss, based on principles such as "la darar" (no harm) and the necessity of fulfilling covenants, while criminal liability aims to safeguard public order and economic ethics by invoking evidence for preserving the social system and negating corruption. Case analysis revealed that the interplay and concurrence of both liabilities are specific to instances where a contractual breach involves an element of encroachment upon the public sphere (such as fraud (ghish), severe deception (tadlis), or breach of trust (khiyanat al-amana)). In such cases, a single act, by virtue of two independent legal titles, necessitates both compensation for damages and eligibility for discretionary punishment (ta'zir). In contrast, a simple breach of obligation without fraudulent intent only gives rise to financial guarantee (daman). As a general conclusion, the jurisprudential system, by identifying these boundaries and prioritizing the right of the private victim in cases of conflict, provides a comprehensive and just model for the simultaneous management of private rights and public interests within contracts.