Case 1: Chen Lianhui's Refusal to Pay Labor Remuneration

——The legal representative of the executed person defaulted on the wages of 73 company employees of over 140000 yuan and fled. He was investigated for refusing to pay labor remuneration in accordance with the law and voluntarily fulfilled his legal obligations during the trial.

Executive Court: Chongqing Kaixian County Court

Reason for Execution: Dispute over Recourse of Labor Remuneration

Application executors: 65 people including Yuan Zutao

Executed by: Chongqing Tongfa Knitting Co., Ltd

【Summary of Case】

On December 5, 2008, Chen Lianhui and Lei Birong invested to establish Chongqing Tongfa Knitting Co., Ltd., engaged in the processing and sales of knitwear products. The company's domicile is in Kaixian County, Chongqing City. As of June 2011, Chongqing Tongfa Knitting Co., Ltd. has accumulated a total of 144474 yuan in unpaid wages to 73 employees including Yuan Zutao. The company's legal representative, Chen Lian, will evade paying workers' wages. In July and August of the same year, employees of Chongqing Tongfa Knitting Co., Ltd. made multiple group petitions for this matter. On August 10th, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Kaixian County issued a notice to Chen Lianhui regarding the payment of overdue employee wages within a specified period, but Chen Lianhui did not pay attention to it. In September 2011, 65 people including Yuan Zutao filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Kaixian County in accordance with the law. In November of the same year, the People's Court of Kaixian County ruled in accordance with the law that Chongqing Tongfa Knitting Co., Ltd. would pay a total of 124311 yuan in wages to 65 people including Yuan Zutao.

Due to Chongqing Tongfa Knitting Co., Ltd. not fulfilling its obligations within the specified time, 65 people including Yuan Zutao applied for compulsory execution in accordance with the law. After accepting the execution, the People's Court of Kaixian County seized the machinery and equipment left by Chongqing Tongfa Knitting Co., Ltd. in the rented premises. After legal evaluation, the People's Court of Kaixian County commissioned a public auction in 2012. Due to outdated machinery and equipment, there was no bidding, and the auction was unsuccessful after two price reductions. The People's Court of Kaixian County announced the sale of the above equipment, but no one purchased it. The applicant for enforcement also did not agree to use the equipment to offset the debt. During this period, Chen Lianhui never showed up.

On January 26, 2014, the People's Court of Kaixian County, after studying, found that Chongqing Tongfa Knitting Co., Ltd. refused to pay labor remuneration, involving a large number of people and a large amount, and its behavior was suspected of committing a crime. Therefore, it decided to transfer it to the public security organs to pursue criminal responsibility. On May 22 of the same year, Chen Lianhui was criminally detained by the public security organs at Kunming Airport. During the criminal detention period, Chen Lianhui paid all the unpaid wages of 124311 yuan to 65 people including Yuan Zutao through their families.

On November 27, 2014, the People's Procuratorate of Kai County filed a public prosecution with the court, demanding that Chen Lianhui be held accountable for the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. During the trial of the case, Chen Lianhui also paid the labor remuneration of 19313 yuan to the other 8 employees who did not sue in court. Considering the actual actions of Chen Lianhui to confess and repent, the People's Court of Kai County sentenced Chen Lianhui to a lenient sentence of three years in prison, suspended for three years, and fined RMB 10000 on January 9, 2015 for refusing to pay labor remuneration.

【Typical significance】

In the execution process of this series of cases, the executing court attaches great importance to the enforcement of cases related to the livelihood of the people, such as the recovery of labor remuneration. For those who refuse to fulfill effective legal documents, they strictly follow the requirements of the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security on Conducting Special Actions to Concentrate on Cracking down on Criminal Acts such as Refusing to Execute Court Judgments and Orders" to strengthen cooperation with the public security The communication and contact between the procuratorial organs have been cracked down on in accordance with the law, improving the execution deterrence and achieving good results. The successful conclusion of this case once again demonstrates that once the judgment of the people's court takes effect, it has legal force, and all parties must consciously execute it. They cannot take chances, and resisting or evading execution may result in criminal responsibility being pursued in accordance with the law.

Case 2: Huang Qibin's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

——The person being executed refuses to fulfill the effective mediation agreement, transfers bank deposits to someone outside the case, resulting in the inability to execute the case, and is held criminally responsible for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling in accordance with the law.

Executive Court: Datian County Court, Sanming City, Fujian Province

Execution Cause: Inheritance Dispute Case

Application executor: Lin Lanxiang

Executed by: Huang Qibin

【Summary of Case】

On March 25, 2014, the People's Court of Datian County, Sanming City, Fujian Province issued a civil mediation agreement (2014) Daminchu Zi No. 958) in accordance with the law regarding the inheritance dispute between the plaintiff Lin Lanxiang and the defendant Huang Qibin, determining that Huang Qibin must pay the remaining inheritance amount of 190000 yuan by April 2, 2014. After the mediation agreement came into effect, Huang Qibin failed to fulfill his obligations as scheduled, and Lin Lanxiang applied to the People's Court of Datian County for compulsory execution. After accepting the execution application, the People's Court of Datian County served an execution notice on Huang Qibin in accordance with the law, and ruled to freeze or deduct Huang Qibin's bank deposits or withhold or withdraw his corresponding value of income. After making a ruling, the People's Court of Datian County ordered Huang Qibin to fulfill the obligations determined in the mediation agreement through face-to-face talks, but Huang Qibin still refused to fulfill them. Afterwards, the Datian County People's Court found through bank inquiries that Huang Qibin had transferred more than 1.3 million yuan from his account to someone outside the case after the mediation agreement came into effect, and he was unable to explain the reason for the transfer. Therefore, the Datian County People's Court transferred Huang Qibin to the public security organs for investigation on suspicion of constituting a crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling.

After the incident, Huang Qibin voluntarily submitted to the public security organs on November 28, 2014, and reached an execution settlement with Lin Lanxiang the following day. Lin Lanxiang paid Lin Lanxiang a total of 230000 yuan in execution fees and interest. Lin Lanxiang requested in writing that Huang Qibin be dealt with leniently. After a court hearing, the People's Court of Datian County held that the defendant Huang Qibin had the ability to execute the legally effective mediation agreement made by the People's Court and refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Given that the defendant Huang Qibin was able to voluntarily submit to the case and truthfully confess the facts of the crime, it constitutes voluntary surrender. At the same time, he has paid all the execution fees and interest, and has obtained a written understanding from the applicant for execution, and can be given a lighter punishment. Based on this, the People's Court of Datian County sentenced the defendant Huang Qibin to six months of detention and six months of probation for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.

【Typical significance】

The mediation agreement reached under the auspices of the people's court has the same effect as the effective judgment or ruling, and the effective mediation agreement also belongs to the category of "judgment or ruling" in the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. After the mediation agreement came into effect, the person executed in this case, Huang Qibin, transferred more than 1.3 million yuan of his bank deposit to an outsider's account, causing the effective mediation agreement to be unable to be fulfilled, which has constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. This case also illustrates from another perspective that for those suspected of constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings, if they can voluntarily submit to the case and actively fulfill their obligations, according to the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity, they can receive lighter punishment.

Case 3: Xu Junyan's Illegal Disposal of Seizure, Seizure, and Freezing of Property

——The person being executed has the ability to perform, but transfers property to evade execution, and is transferred for criminal responsibility on suspicion of constituting illegal disposal, seizure, or freezing of property

Executive Court: Nanhu District Court, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province

Reason for execution: Compensation for personal injury in traffic accidents

Executive applicant: Xu Shoulong

Executed by: Gao Xuezhen

【Summary of Case】

On March 5, 2006, Gao Xuezhen collided with Xu Shoulong while driving a two wheeled motorcycle, causing Xu Shoulong to be injured. According to the traffic police department, Gao Xuezhen was fully responsible for the accident, and Xu Shoulong's injury was identified as a level eight disability. Xu Shoulong sued Gao Xuezhen to the People's Court of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City, Zhejiang Province, demanding compensation of 107026.45 yuan. After mediation by the People's Court of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City, the two parties reached a civil mediation agreement on May 18, 2007 (2007) Namin Yichu Zi No. 380, which determined that the defendant Gao Xuezhen would compensate the plaintiff Xu Shoulong for the total losses of 83800 yuan, including medical expenses, hospitalization meal subsidies, nursing expenses, work delay expenses, transportation expenses, disability subsidies, appraisal fees, and mental damage relief funds, and was scheduled to be paid in three installments by the end of December 2007. After the civil mediation agreement came into effect, Gao Xuezhen did not fulfill the agreement, and Xu Shoulong applied for compulsory execution on August 6, 2007.

During the execution of the case, the People's Court of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City did not discover that the person subjected to execution, Gao Xuezhen, had any property available for execution. Therefore, the execution procedure was terminated on November 2, 2007. At the end of 2012, with the launch of the "three renovations and one demolition" campaign in Nanhu District, Jiaxing City, the applicant for enforcement found that the pigsty owned by Gao Xuezhen's family was included in the demolition scope and should have corresponding compensation. Therefore, they applied to the court to resume enforcement. According to investigation by the People's Court of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City, in May 2013, Gao Xuezhen's family and the Xinfeng Town People's Government of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City provided relevant compensation for the demolition of the pigsty, and the relevant pigsty demolition agreement was signed by the family in the name of Xu Junyan (son of Gao Xuezhen) and the demolition unit. On July 19, 2013, the People's Court of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City served a notice of assistance in execution on the compensation unit Zhulin Village Committee in Xinfeng Town, requesting assistance in freezing compensation funds totaling 155492.18 yuan (including debt interest during the delayed performance period). Subsequently, on December 4, 2013, Xu Junyan transferred the compensation amount of RMB 226170 to Zhang Liwei (Gao Xuezhen's son-in-law) account through the Agricultural Bank of China's Xinfeng Branch's certificate of deposit, which reported the loss of compensation. The People's Court of Nanhu District, Jiaxing City transferred Xu Junyan to the public security organs for investigation on suspicion of illegal disposal, seizure, or freezing of property. During the investigation process by the public security organs, the executed person Gao Xuezhen paid the full compensation of 85800 yuan and the debt interest of 82118.22 yuan during the delayed performance period to the execution court on January 20, 2015. The criminal prosecution procedure for Xu Junyan by relevant authorities is currently underway.

【Typical significance】

The illegal disposal, seizure, or freezing of property by Xu Junyan, the son of the executed person, has been suspected of constituting a crime. It was precisely after the public security organs initiated the criminal accountability procedure that the person subjected to execution voluntarily fulfilled their execution obligations, which led to the conclusion of this case and safeguarded the legitimate rights of victims of traffic accidents. Against the backdrop of frequent resistance and evasion of execution by the executed, and the prominent issue of "difficulty in execution", the people's courts have initiated criminal accountability procedures in accordance with the law, which undoubtedly plays an important guiding role in realizing the rights and obligations determined by judgments and rulings, maintaining judicial order, enhancing judicial authority, and improving judicial credibility.

Case 4: Zeng Musheng is suspected of refusing to execute judgments and rulings

——After the judgment takes effect, the person subjected to execution transfers property and refuses to fulfill the obligation of compensation, and is transferred for investigation on suspicion of refusing to fulfill the judgment or ruling.

Executive Court: Fuchuan County Court, Guangxi

Reason for execution: Dispute over compensation for traffic accident damages

Application for execution by: He Pinwen

Executed by: Gao Shunju, Zeng Musheng

【Summary of Case】

On March 22, 2014, Zeng Musheng hired a driver named Gao Shunju to drive a light van on the Shixiang Road in Fuchuan Yao Autonomous County, Hezhou City, Guangxi. He collided with pedestrian He Ping (the son of the applicant He Pinwen and the stepson of Tengmei), causing He Ping's death on the spot. After investigation, the Traffic Management Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Fuchuan Yao Autonomous County has determined that driver Gao Shunju bears the main responsibility, while He Ping bears the secondary responsibility. On June 9, 2014, the People's Court of Fuchuan Yao Autonomous County ruled that Gao Shunju and Zeng Musheng were jointly and severally liable, compensating He Pinwen and Tengmei for a total of 349695.14 yuan in death compensation, funeral expenses, spiritual comfort, etc. caused by He Ping's death.

After the judgment came into effect, the applicants, He Pinwen and Teng Mei, applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Fuchuan County on July 24, 2014. After accepting the application, the court issued an execution notice to Gao Shunju and Zeng Musheng on July 30, but the two defendants did not voluntarily fulfill their obligations. After investigation by the enforcement court, it was found that the person subjected to enforcement, Zeng Musheng, transferred a small ordinary bus and a truck under his name to another person on June 25, 2014. On June 26, 2014, he went to the administrative department for industry and commerce to cancel his Yusheng Food Wholesale Department operating in Babu District, Hezhou City. After multiple investigations by the People's Court of Fuchuan County, it was not found that the other executed person, Gao Shunju, had any property or clues available for execution.

Due to the fact that the person subjected to execution, Zeng Musheng, sold or disposed of his property in order to evade debt when the court judgment had become legally effective, causing the court judgment to be unenforceable. The circumstances are serious, and his behavior is suspected to constitute the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. On December 8, 2014, the People's Court of Fuchuan County transferred Zeng Musheng to the Public Security Bureau of Fuchuan County for investigation; On December 31 of the same year, Zeng Musheng was arrested with the approval of the People's Procuratorate of Fuchuan County. On January 23, 2015, both parties reached an execution settlement agreement, in which the executed party, Zeng Musheng, paid the applicant 150000 yuan in advance, and the remaining amount was paid in installments. The criminal accountability process for Zeng Musheng is still ongoing.

【Typical significance】

In practice, in order to avoid fulfilling the obligations determined by the effective judgment, the executed party makes every effort to transfer or conceal property, among which the common method is to sell or dispose of the vehicles, properties, etc. under their name. In this case, the person subjected to execution, Zeng Musheng, intentionally sold the vehicle under his name after the judgment came into effect, and cancelled the self-employed business, which clearly belonged to the ability to fulfill obligations and refused to execute, and is suspected of constituting the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. The settlement agreement reached between him and the applicant for execution during his detention can be used as a discretionary sentencing circumstance. The purpose of this case is to warn the person subjected to execution not to take chances and to actively and consciously fulfill the court's judgment. If property is transferred or concealed, criminal penalties may be imposed.

Case 5: Wang Yijun suspected of refusing to execute judgments and rulings

----The person subjected to execution conceals the property seized by the court, but still resists execution after being detained twice by the judiciary. He is accused of constituting a crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling and is transferred to prosecution.

Executive Court: Shandan County Court, Gansu Province

Reason for execution: Dispute over compensation for traffic accident damages

Application for execution by: Zhao Jun

Executed by: Wang Yijun

【Summary of Case】

On the evening of September 13, 2013, Ren Yuhua, an employee of the executed person Wang Yijun, drove a light dump truck with license plate number Gan GF2002 under Wang Yijun's name to Wangzhuang Village, Huocheng Town, Shandan County, Gansu Province. When it collided with a three wheeled motorcycle driven by Du Yonghua, the wife of the applicant Zhao Jun, Du Yonghua was injured and died after rescue efforts. During the handling of the accident, both parties reached a compensation agreement, in which Wang Yijun paid a total of 266000 yuan to the applicant Zhao Jun, including death compensation, funeral expenses, and living expenses for the dependent. After deducting the 20000 yuan already paid and the 106000 yuan paid on the day of the agreement, the remaining 140000 yuan was fully paid before December 31, 2013. If the agreement is not fulfilled, an additional 20% penalty of 53200 yuan is required. On October 8th of the same year, upon the application of both parties, the Shandan County Court in Gansu Province confirmed the validity of the aforementioned compensation agreement in accordance with the law.

Due to Wang Yijun's failure to fulfill the deadline specified in the agreement, the applicant Zhao Jun applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Shandan County on November 13, 2014. During the execution, the People's Court of Shandan County investigated that the defendant Wang Yijun had one license plate for Gan GF2002 light dump truck and one license plate for Gan GC6631 small ordinary bus, respectively. They and their wife Liu Chungui operated a cosmetics store and a mobile phone and home appliance sales department in Fanying Village, Chenhu Township, that county, and were fully capable of fulfilling their obligations. The executors found Wang Yijun and notified him to voluntarily fulfill the court's effective judgment, but Wang Yijun refused to fulfill it. On December 8, 2014, the People's Court of Shandan County took judicial detention measures against Wang Yijun, and also seized the Gan GF2002 light dump truck and Gan GC6631 small ordinary bus under Wang Yijun's name. After the detention period expired, Wang Yijun still refused to fulfill it. The People's Court of Shandan County ordered Wang Yijun to hand over the seized vehicles, but Wang Yijun refused to do so. On January 15, 2015, the People's Court of Shandan County once again took judicial detention measures against him. During the detention period, the enforcement court informed him of the legal consequences of refusing to comply with the court's ruling and requested him to voluntarily surrender his vehicle to cooperate, but Wang Yijun still refused to cooperate. The People's Court of Shandan County believes that the person being executed, Wang Yijun, is fully capable of fulfilling his obligations. Despite repeatedly informing him of the legal consequences, he still refuses to fulfill the effective judgment, and his behavior is suspected of constituting the crime of refusing to execute the court's judgment or ruling. Therefore, he transferred the relevant criminal clues to the public security organs. The public security organs immediately filed a case for investigation and promptly took criminal detention measures against Wang Yijun. Wang Yijun, under the authority of the law, paid the full execution fee of 193200 yuan on February 3, 2015, and the case was successfully resolved. The criminal accountability process for Wang Yijun is still ongoing.

【Typical significance】

Wang Yijun, the person subjected to execution, refused to execute the effective judgment of the court and refused to hand over the property sealed up by the court, even though he was fully capable of fulfilling it. The execution court still opposed the execution of his two judicial detentions, which is a serious act of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling of the people's court. This case not only promotes the smooth execution of the court's effective judgment and protects the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved, but also effectively deters crimes by severely investigating the criminal behavior of the person who refuses to execute the people's court's judgment and ruling. It has a certain educational and promotional effect.