Theme Education Activity on "Promoting Justice and Building Core Values through Openness"

Typical Cases of Refusal to Execute Effective Judgments and Rulings

catalogue

1. Zhuang Xinjian's Application for Compulsory Enforcement of Civil Rights Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd

2. Wang Yijun's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

3. Yang Hongyu's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

4. Zhu Xingfu's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

5. Pang Guofa's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

1、 Zhuang Xinjian's Application for Compulsory Enforcement of Civil Rights Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd

（1） Basic facts of the case

On November 3, 2014, Minquan Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd. urgently needed funds for the purchase of hotel supporting facilities and internal upgrades. It borrowed 18 million yuan from Zhuang Xinjian for a period of 20 days and was jointly and severally guaranteed by Minquan Xiaoqiao Food Co., Ltd., Li Bingbing, and Wei Mingsheng. After the loan term expires, the borrower fails to repay the borrowed item on time as agreed in the contract. The applicant Zhuang Xinjian applied to the Suiyang District Notary Public Office in Shangqiu City on November 24, 2014 for the issuance of a mandatory execution certificate signed with the respondent Renquan Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd. After examination by the Suiyang District Notary Office in Shangqiu City, it was found that the application submitted by Zhuang Xinjian meets legal requirements. On November 25, 2014, a (2014) Shang Sui Zheng Zi No. 060 execution certificate was issued for Zhuang Xinjian.

After the execution certificate came into effect, the applicant repeatedly urged the respondent to fulfill their repayment obligations, and the respondent only repaid the principal of 7.5 million yuan. After multiple unsuccessful reminders, the applicant Zhuang Xinjian applied for compulsory execution to the Shangqiu Intermediate People's Court on April 7, 2015. On May 21, 2015, the Shangqiu Intermediate People's Court transferred the case to the Minquan County People's Court for execution.

（2） Implementation status

After accepting this case, the People's Court of Minquan County took the following measures:

First, deliver the procedures and inspect the property. After accepting the case, the execution personnel promptly served the execution notice, notice of rights and obligations of the executed person, property report order, and other relevant legal documents to the executed People's Rights Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd., Guaranteed People's Rights Xiaoqiao Food Co., Ltd., Li Bingbing, and Wei Mingsheng; On the other hand, investigate and control the property status of the person subjected to execution, and promptly seal up the equity held by the company where the person is located. Thirdly, explain the relevant legal provisions to the person subjected to execution, urge the person to fulfill their obligations within the prescribed time limit, and the legal consequences of refusal to do so.

Secondly, use the internet to investigate and control the information of the executed person and promptly list them as dishonest executed persons. After the case was accepted, the information of the executed person was investigated and controlled online. After investigation, it was found that the executed person did not have a large deposit in the bank. Further inquiries were conducted on the property situation of the executed person, but no significant findings were made. In the event that the person subjected to execution fails to fulfill their obligations within the prescribed time limit, the person shall be promptly classified as a dishonest person, and their dishonesty shall be disclosed on relevant electronic screens to limit their high consumption and urge them to actively fulfill their obligations. When told that he was listed as a dishonest defendant, the defendant was extremely nervous because as a company, his reputation was above all else. Therefore, the defendant actively negotiated with the applicant for execution, actively communicated with the applicant, and made a high stance to resolve the case.

Finally, do a good job in reasoning education. In the execution regulations, if the person subjected to execution fails to fulfill their obligations within the prescribed time limit, the execution personnel shall promptly summon the person subjected to execution, explain the relevant legal provisions, explain the legal consequences of refusal to perform, etc., so that the person subjected to execution can understand the legal consequences of refusal to perform. With the education and persuasion of the execution personnel, the person subjected to execution quickly comes up with a solution and actively negotiates with the applicant to reach an execution settlement, Promptly fulfilled its obligations and the case was resolved.

（3） Typical significance

The executing court shall enter the list of dishonest executed persons into the list of dishonest executed persons of the Supreme People's Court, publish it uniformly to the public, and publish it through newspapers, radio, television, internet, and other means at the same time. As an enterprise, the person subjected to enforcement, under social pressure, actively expresses to the enforcement court to fulfill their obligations as soon as possible in order to maintain their reputation in economic exchanges. The credit punishment function of the list system of dishonest persons subjected to enforcement can be effectively played.

2、 Case of Wang Yijun Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings

（1） Basic facts of the case

Since December 2006, Chang Yonghua, Yang Zhong, Wang Fujun and others have successively filed a case in the Heping District Court for enforcement, demanding that the person being executed, Liaoning Tongchuang Housing Development Co., Ltd., return the purchase price. During the execution process, Wang Yijun was aware that the company had been sentenced by the court to repay others' money and had received multiple execution notices. On April 15, 2011, he sold off the company's property located at No. 58 Wen'an Road, Heping District, Shenyang City, on the first floor at a low price of 8866400 yuan. After obtaining the selling price, he still did not comply with the judgment and sent a payment without authorization to Duan Lian, who was not related to Tongchuang Real Estate Company. After several attempts to urge him, he was unsuccessful, Ultimately, the effective civil judgment cannot be enforced.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Heping District, Shenyang City found that Wang Yijun sold his property and paid the proceeds to others after the court's judgment and ruling came into effect, but refused to comply with the legally effective judgment of the people's court, resulting in the court's judgment being unable to be executed. The situation was serious and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. The prosecution charges were established. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, Wang Yijun was sentenced to two years in prison for refusing to execute the sentence. After the verdict was pronounced, Wang Yijun stated that he complied with the verdict and did not file an appeal.

（3） Typical significance

As the general manager of Liaoning Tongchuang Housing Development Co., Ltd., Wang Yijun is fully capable of executing effective legal documents to pay the purchase price. However, in the process of execution, they not only refuse or obstruct the execution, but also sell their property and use the proceeds to pay others, directly resulting in the inability to execute the judgment, knowing that the judgment has been returned to others and receiving multiple execution notices. The above behavior of Wang Yijun subjectively has the intention to resist execution, with severe consequences and significant social harm. Through this case, if Wang Yijun could correctly recognize the legal consequences of evading execution after receiving a notice from the court and proactively fulfill the obligations determined by the judgment, he would not be transferred to the public security organs. It is precisely because of my own lucky mentality that I attempted to seek benefits through the transfer of property, which disrupted the normal execution order of the court. In the end, I paid the due legal price for resisting execution.

The Wang Yijun case is a typical case of having the ability to fulfill but refusing to execute. It was precisely after the public security organs initiated the criminal accountability procedure that Wang Yijun was punished accordingly, and the legitimate rights of the relevant rights holders were safeguarded. Against the backdrop of frequent resistance, evasion of execution, and prominent difficulties in execution, it is particularly necessary for people's courts to crack down on refusal of execution in accordance with the law. It plays an important guiding role in achieving the content of judgments, maintaining judicial order, enhancing judicial authority, and improving judicial credibility.

3、 Case of Yang Hongyu Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 23, 2010, Huo, who was only 7 years old, went to play on the roof of a newly built house in his village. During the play, he accidentally touched the 10 kV high-voltage line on the roof and was injured. According to the appraisal by the Western Yunnan Judicial Appraisal Center, the current percentage of hypertrophic scars caused by Huo's right shoulder joint at a distance of 9.2cm is 13%, and the current level of injury is 9%. On September 29, 2011, the plaintiff Huo filed a lawsuit to order the defendants Dali Power Supply Co., Ltd., Yang Hongyu, and the homeowner Yang to jointly assume compensation liability.

On December 12, 2011, the People's Court of Dali City ruled that the defendant Yang Hongyu would compensate 199353.99 yuan, deducting the 15000 yuan already paid, and actually paying 184353.99 yuan; The defendant Dali Power Supply Co., Ltd. shall compensate 199353.99 yuan; Defendant Yang will compensate 133235.99 yuan. On August 24, 2012, Huo applied for compulsory execution. After multiple urging, Yang Hongyu, the executed person, refused to fulfill his obligation to compensate. During the execution process, it was found that the person being executed, Yang Hongyu, had established an individual industrial and commercial enterprise, Dali Hongyu Foundry, which paid taxes on schedule and operated normally; There are two registered motor vehicles under its name; The executed person also built a five story house (with a building area of approximately 1000 square meters) after the incident.

On September 25, 2012, the People's Court of Dali City held the executed person in judicial detention for 15 days. After the detention period, the executed person still failed to fulfill his obligation to compensate. On August 28, 2014, the execution personnel delivered the "Execution Decision Letter" to the executed person Yang Hongyu, which included him in the list of dishonest executed persons. On October 21, 2014, the execution personnel paid an execution fee of 10000 yuan, but refused to fulfill the remaining amount of 174353.99 yuan for various reasons.

（2） Judgment results

The executed person Yang Hongyu has long refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment document, and his behavior has been suspected of the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. On December 12, 2014, the Dali City Court transferred the case to the Dali Public Security Bureau for investigation. On January 31, 2015, the Dali City Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Dali City People's Court, accusing Yang Hongyu of the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. During the trial of the case, Yang Hongyu, the defendant who was executed, truthfully confessed his criminal facts and voluntarily confessed. His family actively raised and paid all compensation and obtained the victim's understanding. The Dali City People's Court subsequently convicted the defendant Yang Hongyu of refusing to execute the judgment and sentenced him to six months in prison with a one-year probation.

（3） Typical significance

The person subjected to execution in this case still opposes execution after being judicially detained by the people's court, intentionally delaying and evading execution despite having property available for execution. This has constituted a refusal to execute the judgment or ruling, and the circumstances are serious. Corresponding criminal responsibility should be pursued in accordance with the law.

4、 Zhu Xingfu's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 28, 2011, the People's Court of Yiliang County ruled that the defendants Zhu Xingfu and Li Qiongfang would return the plaintiff Fu and other two individuals an unjust enrichment of RMB 240000. After the judgment came into effect, Zhu Xingfu and Li Qiongfang had not executed the judgment. On December 19, 2011, the applicant applied to the People's Court for compulsory execution. On January 29, 2012, the defendant Zhu Xingfu was detained by the court for 15 days for refusing to execute the effective judgment. Later, due to the fact that the defendant Zhu Xingfu had no property to execute, the execution process in this case was terminated on December 6, 2012. The applicant came to the court multiple times to apply for the resumption of execution in this case. The court found that Zhu Xingfu had transferred 100000 yuan each to his daughter Zhu Jiamei and son-in-law Ji Yonghui, and Ji Yonghui's bank card still had over 50000 yuan. In February 2015, the court resumed the execution of the case, ruling to add Zhu Jiamei and Ji Yonghui as the defendants, and froze Ji Yonghui's bank card and Li Qiongfang's bank card. Afterwards, Zhu Xingfu still did not execute the judgment of the people's court, and the People's Court of Yiliang County distributed the frozen execution funds of 110000 yuan to the two individuals. The defendant Zhu Xingfu and others have not yet returned the remaining 130000 yuan to a certain person.

（2） Judgment results

The court held that the defendant Zhu Xingfu had the ability to execute the judgment of the people's court but refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior violated Article 313 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, constituting the crime of refusal to execute. The defendant Zhu Xingfu was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in accordance with the law.

（3） Typical significance

The person executed in this case, Zhu Xingfu, has a certain ability to execute the effective judgment, but his transfer of property is of a bad nature and poses significant social harm, and should be punished in accordance with the law. In order to further make the trial of the case open and transparent, the People's Court of Yiliang County actively accepts the supervision of the National People's Congress, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and society, and invites more than 50 representatives of the National People's Congress, members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, people's assessors, and local people to participate in the hearing. It also issued promotional materials on the "Relevant Legal Provisions on the Crime of Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings", which made the audience realize the importance of court judgments and rulings through the trial of the case, Refusing to enforce a court's effective judgment or ruling is subject to criminal accountability.

5、 Pang Guofa's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Huanan County Rural Credit Cooperative appealed to the court due to the defendant Pang Guofa's loan of 75000 yuan not being repaid upon maturity. After mediation by the Huanan County People's Court, both parties reached a mediation agreement: Pang Guofa returned the loan on November 30, 2011. After the agreement expired, Pang Guofa failed to fulfill the mediation agreement, and Huanan County Rural Credit Cooperative Union applied to the court for compulsory execution. On October 21, 2014, the People's Court of Huanan County ruled to seal up 50 tons of rice owned by Pang Guofa in accordance with the law. In November of the same year, Pang Guofa privately sold the sealed rice and received over 110000 yuan in sales proceeds. In addition to repaying the loan of 20000 yuan from the Huanan County Credit Cooperative, the remaining funds were used to repay individual debts, making the ruling unenforceable.

Furthermore, it was found that the defendant Pang Guo had already handed over the execution amount of RMB 90000 to the Executive Bureau of the Huanan County People's Court upon arrival in the case.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Huanan County, Heilongjiang Province found that the defendant Pang Guofa had the ability to execute the ruling but refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the ruling and should be punished according to law. The prosecution accuses the defendant Pang Guofa of refusing to execute the verdict. The facts are clear, the evidence is accurate and sufficient, and the charges are established. The defendant Pang Guofa was able to truthfully confess the facts of the crime in the case and voluntarily fulfilled some of the execution obligations. Moreover, this crime is a first time offender, so he can be given a lighter punishment and suspended sentence. According to the provisions of Article 313, Article 67, Paragraph 3, Article 72, Article 73, Paragraph 2, and Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: The defendant Pang Guofa commits the crime of refusing to execute the ruling and is sentenced to six months' imprisonment with a one-year probation.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, the situation of difficulty in executing effective documents in courts across the country has become increasingly serious. Those who violate their trust and are executed have used various methods to evade execution, causing creditors whose rights have been infringed upon to hold the effective judgments of the court but cannot be actually fulfilled. The people's court has used the sharp sword of criminal trial to punish a number of cases of refusal to execute, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of creditors and punishing the bad social atmosphere of lacking integrity.