Typical Cases of Self Prosecution for Refusal to Execute Crime

catalogue

1. Guo Kecun's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

2. Li Xudong's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

3. Liu Yongbin's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

4. Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu Refusing to Execute Judgments and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

5. Liao Changnian's Case of Private Prosecution in Case of Refusing to Execute Judgment and Ruling

6. Case of Ke Wenshui's Refusal to Execute Judgment or Ruling in Private Prosecution

Case 1: Guo Kecun's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

The person subjected to execution defaulted on the wages of migrant workers and refused to fulfill their execution obligations after being detained twice. The applicant filed a private prosecution with the people's court, and the person subjected to execution was sentenced to two years and six months in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

From March 2014 to December 2014, Liu Dalong led 17 migrant workers to work for Guo Kecun in his cellar factory. Guo Kecun owed 118000 yuan in wages to migrant workers, but Liu Dalong repeatedly urged him to do so without success. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City, Henan Province. On January 13, 2015, the court issued a civil mediation agreement (2015) Shang Sui Min Chu Zi No. 139, confirming that Guo Kecun paid 9800 yuan before January 15, 2015, 20000 yuan before January 20 of the same year, and the remaining 88200 yuan was paid in full before April 15 of the same year. Guo Kecun made an actual payment of 9800 yuan to Liu Dalong on January 14, 2015, and the remaining payments were not fulfilled within the agreed period. On February 2, 2015, Liu Dalong applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City, and the court filed a case for execution on that day. The enforcement court served an enforcement notice on Guo Kecun, ordering him to declare his property status. On May 18, 2015, the enforcement court detained Guo Kecun for 15 days due to his refusal to fulfill his payment obligations and to report on his property status. After taking detention measures, Guo Kecun still refused to fulfill his payment obligations. On June 2, 2015, the enforcement court served an enforcement ruling on Guo Kecun, limiting him to fulfill his obligations according to the effective civil mediation agreement before June 30, 2015. Due to Guo Kecun's refusal to perform, the enforcement court detained him for another 15 days on November 20, 2015. As of November 24, 2015, Guo Kecun still owed 108200 yuan in wages and delayed interest to migrant workers such as Liu Dalong. Later, Liu Dalong filed a complaint with the public security organs, which did not accept it.

On November 24, 2015, Liu Dalong filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City, demanding that Guo Kecun be held criminally responsible for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. The court filed the case on the same day. On December 4th of the same year, the court arrested Guo Kecun. On December 9th of the same year, the court held a public hearing on this case and pronounced a verdict in court. Guo Kecun was sentenced to two years and six months in prison for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. After the first instance verdict, Guo Kecun did not appeal. The enforcement court has granted legal aid of 20000 yuan to migrant workers such as Liu Dalong, who applied for enforcement.

（2） Typical significance

The person subjected to execution in this case operated a kiln and had the ability to pay the unpaid wages of migrant workers. They intentionally defaulted and did not fulfill their obligations. The execution court had twice imposed detention measures on them, but they still did not repent and continued to evade execution. After entering the trial process, he still disregarded the living difficulties of several migrant workers, refused to fulfill the payment obligations determined by the effective ruling, and showed no actual repentance. In the end, he was sentenced to two years and six months in prison for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling, paying the legal price he deserved for his refusal to execute.

Case 2: Li Xudong's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

After receiving insurance claims, the person subjected to execution was diverted for other purposes, resulting in the inability to execute the case. The applicant for execution filed a private prosecution with the people's court, and the person subjected to execution was sentenced to six months of detention and one year of probation

（1） Basic facts of the case

In the case of a road traffic accident liability dispute between Li Xudong and Lv and others, the People's Court of Yuanyang County, Henan Province issued a civil judgment on December 3, 2013, confirming that Li Xudong compensated the victim Lv and others with 112000 yuan. After the civil judgment came into effect, Li Xudong failed to fulfill the compensation obligation determined by the judgment. On April 9, 2014, Lv and others applied to the People's Court of Yuanyang County for compulsory execution, and the court filed a case for execution. The enforcement court served an enforcement notice on Li Xudong, but Li Xudong did not fulfill his compensation obligation within the limited time. In July 2014, the enforcement court successively fined Li Xudong 10000 yuan and detained him for 15 days. However, Li Xudong still failed to fulfill his compensation obligations. On July 18, 2014, Li Xudong provided a written guarantee to the enforcement court that after winning the case against the insurance company, he would voluntarily hand over the insurance compensation to the enforcement court. On September 24th of the same year, the insurance company transferred 100000 yuan of compensation to the bank savings card of Niu, the agent entrusted by Li Xudong, based on the civil mediation agreement of the People's Court of Yuzhou City. Niu withdrew the payment and delivered it to Li Xudong on September 27th of the same year, but Li Xudong did not truthfully declare and voluntarily fulfill the written guarantee to the executing court. In July and August 2015, the enforcement court notified Li Xudong twice to declare his property, but Li Xudong still failed to truthfully declare and voluntarily fulfill his obligations, and misappropriated some of the insurance claims, resulting in the inability to enforce the effective civil judgment.

On July 29, 2015, Lv and others filed a complaint with the public security organs regarding Li Xudong's refusal to execute a judgment or ruling, but the public security organs did not accept it. On August 5, 2015, Lv and others filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Yuanyang County. During the trial of this case by the People's Court of Yuanyang County, Li Xudong voluntarily reached a settlement agreement with the private prosecutor Lv and others, and compensated Lv and others for various losses of 123344 yuan in a lump sum, obtaining the understanding of Lv and others. After trial, the People's Court of Yuanyang County found that Li Xudong had the ability to execute the effective judgment of the People's Court but refused to execute it, and refused to report his property status. Despite being fined or detained, he still refused to execute. The criminal circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Given that Li Xudong had a good attitude of pleading guilty in court and was able to reach a settlement with Lv and others before the first instance verdict was pronounced, and actively fulfilled his obligation to confirm the verdict, he did indeed confess and repent, and could be given a lighter punishment according to law. The court sentenced Li Xudong to six months of detention and one year of probation for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. After the first instance verdict, Li Xudong did not appeal.

（2） Typical significance

The person subject to enforcement in this case has the ability to enforce the compensation obligation determined by the effective judgment but refuses to do so. After being fined or detained, he still refuses to repent and misappropriates the insurance compensation received for other purposes, resulting in the inability to enforce the effective judgment. Therefore, his criminal responsibility should be pursued in accordance with the law. This case initiated the prosecution process through private prosecution, ultimately prompting the person subjected to execution to fulfill their compensation obligations and obtaining the understanding of the applicant for execution. This case is the first private prosecution case pronounced in Henan Province after the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation of the crime of refusal to execute was released, and has played a exemplary role in the trial of private prosecution cases in that province.

Case 3: Liu Yongbin's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

The person subjected to execution, Liu Yongbin, has high consumption and the ability to execute effective judgments, but refuses to execute them. The applicant for execution files a private prosecution with the people's court, and the person subjected to execution is sentenced to six months in prison with a one-year probation

（1） Basic facts of the case

Zibo Rongxin Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Rongxin Company) and Zibo Qishun Transportation Co., Ltd., Liu Zhonghua, Chen Yuhua, Liu Yongbin, Zhu Jihong, and Zibo Aoxin Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. have made a civil judgment in the case of a dispute over the guarantee and recovery rights. The People's Court of Zibo High tech Development Zone in Shandong Province has ordered Zibo Qishun Transportation Co., Ltd. to repay the bank advance of 2 million yuan to Rongxin Company within ten days of the judgment coming into effect, Pay a penalty of 1 million yuan for breach of contract; Liu Zhonghua, Chen Yuhua, Liu Yongbin, Zhu Jihong, and Zibo Aoxin Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. shall be jointly and severally liable for the above payments.

After the civil judgment came into effect, Liu Yongbin and others failed to fulfill their repayment obligations. On June 18, 2015, Rongxin Company applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Zibo High tech Development Zone, which filed a case for execution. The enforcement court issued an enforcement notice to Liu Yongbin and repeatedly searched for contact. Liu Yongbin and his relatives intentionally avoided and refused to fulfill their payment obligations. On September 10, 2015, the enforcement court issued a detention decision, taking detention measures against Liu Yongbin. Ten "95 Supreme" brand cigarettes, one LV bag, and six boxes of tea were found in the Audi sedan he drove on a daily basis. On the day of Liu Yongbin's detention, under the coordination and organization of the court, Liu Yongbin reached a settlement agreement with the applicant for enforcement. The agreement stipulates that Liu Yongbin shall pay 500000 yuan before September 10, 2015, and 500000 yuan before September 25 of the same year. The remaining balance and interest shall be paid approximately 100000 yuan per month from October of the same year until fully paid. The minimum payment for three consecutive months shall not be less than 300000 yuan. If Liu Yongbin fails to make the payment within the prescribed time limit, he shall voluntarily bear corresponding legal responsibilities. After the agreement was signed, Liu Yongbin failed to fulfill his obligations as stipulated in the agreement, and Rongxin Company filed a complaint with the public security organs. The public security organs issued a notice of non filing to Rongxin Company on September 14, 2015. On September 18 of the same year, Rongxin Company filed a private lawsuit with the People's Court of Zibo High tech Development Zone.

After trial, the People's Court of Zibo High tech Development Zone found that the company controlled by Liu Yongbin was operating normally with a monthly income of 20000 to 30000 yuan. However, after the civil judgment came into effect and during the execution period of this court, Liu Yongbin did not actively negotiate repayment matters with the applicant for execution, and there were still behaviors such as driving high-end cars, using high-end consumer goods, and living in high-end housing, Especially after reaching a settlement agreement with the applicant for enforcement under the auspices of the court, if the applicant still fails to perform according to the agreement, it should be deemed that he has the subjective intention of refusing to execute due to his ability to do so. Considering that Liu Yongbin reached a new settlement agreement with the private prosecutor during the court trial, some of the funds have already been paid, and the private prosecutor agrees to impose a lighter punishment on him, he may be subject to a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. The court sentenced Liu Yongbin to six months' imprisonment and one year's probation for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.

（2） Typical significance

The enforcement court shall promptly investigate and collect evidence related to the refusal of the person subjected to enforcement due to their ability to perform, and actively guide the parties to exercise their right to sue and report cases in accordance with the law. After the parties file a private prosecution, the filing department, criminal trial department, and enforcement agency of the enforcement court strengthen communication and coordination, quickly file a case, conduct a timely trial, and make a judgment in accordance with the law to urge the defendant to repay the debt. In less than 6 months from the execution of this case to the conclusion of the private prosecution criminal case, the executing court made full use of legal means to severely punish the refusal to execute the crime in accordance with the law, effectively promoting the execution of the case, and effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution.

Case 4: Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu Refusing to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

The person subjected to execution refuses to report on their personal property status, but still builds their own housing during the execution process and is capable of execution, but refuses to execute. The applicant for execution files a private prosecution with the people's court, and the person subjected to execution is sentenced to a suspended sentence

（1） Basic facts of the case

In June 2011, Yuan Chaoyu contracted the construction of Song Baotong's house, and both parties agreed that Song Baotong would not be responsible for any accidents that occurred during the construction. During the construction, Yuan Chaoyu subcontracted the construction of the support shell and ring beam to Yang Xiantao, who hired Li Gensheng and others to work. On August 12, 2011, Li Gensheng and others were working under the construction site gantry. Due to a machine malfunction, Li Gensheng was injured. Later, Li Gensheng sued Yuan Chaoyu, Yang Xiantao, and Song Baotong to the People's Court of Yanshi City, Henan Province. The People's Court of Yanshi City issued a civil judgment (2011) Yanzhen Minchu Zi No. 486, confirming that Yuan Chaoyu and Yang Xiantao compensated Li Gensheng for various losses of 795700 yuan, and Song Baotong compensated Li Gensheng for losses of 3000 yuan (fulfilled). Later, Li Gensheng sued again for the cost of the second surgery. The People's Court of Yanshi City issued a civil judgment (2013) Yan Min Liu Chu Zi No. 308, ruling that Yuan Chaoyu and Yang Xiantao would compensate Li Gensheng for various expenses such as the second surgery, totaling 4706.02 yuan. After the judgment came into effect, Li Gensheng applied to the People's Court of Yanshi City for compulsory execution, and the court filed a case for execution. The execution court delivered a property report order to Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu, requesting the declaration of personal property status, and included them in the list of dishonest defendants in accordance with the law, limiting their high consumption, and conducting inquiries on their bank deposits, vehicles, and property information. Yuan Chaoyu's bank deposit of 8649 yuan was frozen. Due to Yuan Chaoyu and Yang Xiantao's refusal to report on their personal property status, Yuan Chaoyu did not provide a reasonable explanation for the corresponding deposits, and the enforcement court took detention measures against them in accordance with the law.

The enforcement court also found that Yuan Chaoyu was a construction team contractor who worked near Yanshi City for many years and claimed to earn around 3000 yuan per month. On June 6, 2014, Yuan Chaoyu's son got married, and Yuan Chaoyu spent over 20000 yuan on his son's wedding banquet. Yang Xiantao demolished his own house and rebuilt a new one in early 2015. The executors repeatedly summoned him to court, considering that his house had already been demolished, and demanded that he immediately stop construction after the first floor of the new house was capped. However, Yang Xiantao failed to stop construction as required and continued to build a two-story house and renovate the first floor house. For the execution of this case, Yuan Chaoyu and Yang Xiantao stated that they would pay a maximum of 10000 yuan.

During the execution of the case, Li Gensheng requested that Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu be held criminally responsible for their refusal to commit the crime. The execution court guided them to submit complaint materials to the local public security bureau and provided feedback on the execution of the case to the public security organs. After examination, the public security organs issue a notice of refusal to file a case. Li Gensheng then filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Yanshi City, which accepted it in accordance with the law and made an arrest decision against Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu.

During the trial of the private prosecution case, the families of Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu actively negotiated with Li Gensheng and quickly reached an execution settlement agreement, paying Li Gensheng 66000 yuan in a lump sum, and the execution case was closed. Li Gensheng then issued a written understanding to Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu to the People's Court of Yanshi City. After trial, the court sentenced Yuan Chaoyu to one year and six months in prison, with a two-year probation, for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling in accordance with the law; Yang Xiantao was sentenced to six months in prison with a one-year probation.

（2） Typical significance

Yang Xiantao, the subject of this case, built and renovated a new house during the execution process. Yuan Chaoyu, the subject of the execution, has a certain amount of deposit in the bank and is a contractor with a fixed income. Both of them have the ability to fulfill their obligations but refuse to do so. They refuse to report their personal property status, and after taking detention measures, they still do not repent. They should be held criminally responsible in accordance with the law. After filing a complaint with the public security organ with no results, the applicant for enforcement demands that the person being executed refuse to execute the judgment or ruling for criminal responsibility through private prosecution in accordance with the law. Through trial, on the one hand, the criminal behavior of refusing to execute is punished, and on the other hand, it also promotes the person being executed to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment in a timely manner, promoting the smooth conclusion of the case.

Case 5: Liao Changnian's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

If the person subjected to enforcement has the ability to execute the effective ruling but refuses to do so, the applicant for enforcement files a private prosecution with the people's court. Both parties voluntarily reach a settlement agreement, and the person subjected to enforcement receives the understanding of the private prosecutor and is exempted from criminal punishment

（1） Basic facts of the case

In the case of a civil loan dispute between Xu Jiashun and Liao Changnian, the People's Court of Jiangle County, Fujian Province issued a civil mediation agreement (2013) with the number of civil mediation letters (JMCZ No. 254), confirming that Liao Changnian and others repaid the loan of 300000 yuan and interest to Xu Jiashun. After the civil mediation agreement came into effect, due to Liao Changnian and others failing to fulfill their repayment obligations, Xu Jiashun applied to the People's Court of Jiangle County for compulsory execution, and the court filed a case for execution. The enforcement court issued an enforcement ruling to enforce the mediation agreement and on October 23, 2015, served an enforcement notice on Liao Changnian, requesting him to immediately deliver his sedan with the license plate number Min GS0356 to the enforcement court. The enforcement court also found that Liao Changnian resided in a self built house without property rights, and his personal four storefront room located in Jiangle County was rented for a long time, with a monthly rent of 2600 yuan. In 2014, his village provided him with a subsidy of 158400 yuan. Due to Liao Changnian's refusal to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective legal documents, Xu Jia Shunsui filed a complaint with the public security organ, which issued a decision on rejection to him. On November 26, 2015, Xu Jiashun filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Jiangle County for Liao Changnian's crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling.

On December 15, 2015, the defendant Liao Changnian reached a settlement agreement with the private prosecutor Xu Jiashun, agreeing that Liao Changnian would return Xu Jiashun 2500 yuan per month, and obtaining Xu Jiashun's understanding. After trial, the People's Court of Jiangle County found that Liao Changnian had the ability to execute the ruling of the People's Court but refused to execute it, refusing to deliver the property specified in the execution ruling, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Considering that Liao Changnian was able to truthfully confess the facts of his refusal to commit the crime and the circumstances of the crime were minor, a settlement agreement has been reached with the private prosecutor, and the other party's understanding has been obtained, allowing him to be exempted from criminal punishment. Based on this, the People's Court of Jiangle County sentenced Liao Changnian to be exempted from criminal punishment for refusing to execute judgments or rulings.

（2） Typical significance

The person subject to execution in this case is fully capable of executing the execution ruling made by the people's court for the execution of the effective mediation agreement, but the person subject to execution refuses to fulfill the execution obligation, which constitutes the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Given the minor circumstances of the person being executed refusing to execute the crime, and during the trial of the private prosecution case, a settlement agreement was reached with the private prosecutor, obtaining their understanding, and they can be given a lighter punishment.

Case 6: Ke Wenshui's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

The person subjected to execution has the ability to fulfill but refuses to fulfill the repayment obligation. The applicant for execution files a private lawsuit with the people's court in accordance with the law, and both parties voluntarily reach a settlement agreement. The applicant for execution applies for withdrawal of the lawsuit, and the people's court rules to approve the withdrawal of the lawsuit

（1） Basic facts of the case

In the case of a civil loan dispute between Xiao Hui and Ke Wenshui, the People's Court of Jiangle County, Fujian Province issued a civil mediation agreement (2014) with the number of civil mediation letters (JMCZ No. 893), confirming that Ke Wenshui and others repaid Xiao Hui a loan of 1.6 million yuan and interest. After the mediation agreement came into effect, due to Ke Wenshui and others failing to fulfill their repayment obligations, Xiao Hui applied to the People's Court of Jiangle County for compulsory execution, and the court filed a case for enforcement. The enforcement court made an enforcement ruling to enforce the effective mediation agreement, confiscating one Odyssey sedan with a license plate number of Min G98552 under the name of Ke Wenshui, and requesting that the sedan be delivered to the enforcement court. But Ke Wenshui still uses the vehicle and refuses to deliver it to the court for execution. Xiao Hui then filed a complaint with the public security organs, which issued a decision not to accept it.

On December 15, 2015, Xiao Hui filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Jiangle County, demanding that Ke Wenshui be held criminally responsible for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. On December 20, 2015, Ke Wenshui and Xiao Hui reached a settlement agreement, agreeing that Ke Wenshui would repay the debt to Xiao Hui within a certain period, and obtaining the understanding of the private prosecutor. During the trial of the case, Xiao Hui voluntarily applied to the People's Court of Jiangle County to withdraw his private prosecution. The People's Court of Jiangle County has made a ruling approving the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

（2） Typical significance

During the execution of the case, the applicant actively collects relevant evidence of the person being executed refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. If the conditions for private prosecution are met, the criminal responsibility of the person being executed will be pursued through the private prosecution procedure in accordance with the law, which will have a certain deterrent effect on the person being executed and force the person being executed to actively negotiate a solution for the execution of the case. If both parties have reached a settlement, the person being executed has obtained the understanding of the private prosecutor, and the private prosecutor requests withdrawal of the case, According to legal provisions, the people's court shall allow the private prosecutor to withdraw the lawsuit.