Mandated credit facilities—serving as an instrument for implementing the government's economic and social policies—create a relationship distinct from ordinary banking facilities; in these instances, banks allocate their resources to specific individuals and activities within the framework of statutory obligations or public policies, while government guarantees may cover all or part of the risk of non-repayment. This study aims to elucidate the legal nature of government guarantees in mandated credit facilities, their impact on the scope of liability for the government, the bank, and the borrower, and the distribution of risk arising from non-repayment. The objective is to define the limits of the government's commitment and determine the legal consequences regarding liability and the allocation of credit risk among the relevant parties. The research employs a descriptive-analytical method, drawing upon laws and regulations governing government obligations, banking operations, and mandated credit facilities. The findings indicate that a government guarantee cannot be equated solely with a direct government obligation to repay the debt; rather, its effects depend on the terms of the establishing regulation or document, the extent of the government's commitment, and the conditions for invoking the guarantee. Furthermore, a government guarantee does not, in principle, extinguish the borrower's primary obligation, and any payment made by the government may serve as the basis for a right of recourse against the principal debtor. The study concludes that the effectiveness of a government guarantee requires the explicit definition of the scope of commitment, the conditions triggering government liability,