The Execution Command Center of Hunan Higher People's Court is carrying out remote command and execution.
Red Net Changsha May 11 (Time News Reporter Zheng Tao Correspondent Zeng Yan) On May 11, the Hunan High Court held a press conference to release the top ten typical cases of cracking down on the crime of refusal to execute and Wu Qinjian's refusal to enforce court judgments and rulings. Since the "Special Action to Combat Criminal Acts such as Refusal to Enforce judgments and Rulings" was launched in 2014, courts at all levels in Hunan Province have always regarded the crackdown on refusal to enforce crimes as an important focus for solving the "difficulty in execution". Courts across the province have achieved remarkable results in combating refusal to enforce crimes. In 2016, 145 persons subject to execution in the province were held criminally responsible for refusing to execute the judgment and ruling, and 4,592 people were detained judicially.
Under the leadership of the Provincial Party Committee Political and Legal Affairs Committee, the courts of Hunan Province coordinated the procuratorial and public security organs, Changsha, Changde , Yiyang , Loudi, Yongzhou and other places issued the "Minutes of the Meeting on Establishing and Improving a Long-term Mechanism for Combating Refusal to Enforce Illegal and Crimes in the City", "Memorandum of the Joint Meeting on Solving the Implementation Issues of "difficulty in Execution" in the Court", "Opinions on Cracking Refusal to Enforce Judgments and Rulings in accordance with the Law", "Notice on the Person to Execute Person to Perform Obligations within a Time Term and Crimes on Crimes of Suspicion of Refusal to Enforce Judgments and Rulings", "Notice on Urging Person to Enforce the Person to Enforce the Consciously Perform Legal Obligations", and form a joint force to combat Refusal to Enforce crimes.
Hunan Court has established a joint credit punishment mechanism to crack down on refusal to execute. The "Implementation Opinions on Accelerating the Construction of Credit Supervision, Warning and Punishment Mechanisms for Blind Default Persons" issued by the General Office of the Hunan Provincial Party Committee and the General Office of the Hunan Provincial Government closely combines with the actual situation in Hunan, and clarifies that 40 provincial units in Hunan will jointly punish the travel, investment, property purchase, financing, consumption, appointment, joining the party, enlisting, civil servant recruitment, and honors of the dishonest person within their respective regulatory scope. A total of 33 specific punishment measures have been formed, forming a pattern of "one place of dishonest, every place is restricted", which effectively promotes the construction of the social credit system.
In terms of the legal liability for refusal to execute crimes in conjunction with public prosecution and private prosecution, the Hunan Court, in accordance with the provisions of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings", in May 2016, Xiangtan County Court heard the first private prosecution case in Hunan and sentenced it to a sentence.
According to Guo Zhenghuai, member of the Party Leadership Group and Director of the Execution Bureau of Hunan High Court, Hunan courts will further increase the crackdown on crimes against crimes against crimes against crimes against crimes, establish a long-term mechanism with procuratorial and public security organs to crack down on crimes against crimes such as evasion of execution, resist execution, and obstruction of execution, improve the execution environment, ensure the realization of the work goal of "basically solving the problem of difficulty in execution in two to three years", effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and safeguard the dignity of the law.
The top ten typical cases of Hunan Province cracking down on refusal to execute judgments and ruling crimes since 2016:
Case 1: Wu Qinjian's refusal to execute court judgments and ruling cases
[Basic case] Zoomlion Heavyke Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Zoomlion Heavyke") and Wu Qinjian's contract dispute case, the Changsha Intermediate Court made the civil judgment (2010) Changzhong Min Second End No. 2818 on December 8, 2010, ruling that the defendant Wu Qinjian would pay Zoomlion more than 2.7 million yuan in one lump sum within three days from the date of the judgment. After the above judgment came into effect, Zoomlion Heavy Industry applied for compulsory execution to the Changsha City Yuelu District Court because the defendant Wu Qinjian failed to fulfill his payment obligation in accordance with the effective judgment. On January 7, 2011 and September 10, 2012, the Yuelu District Court of Changsha City mailed the execution notice and the resumption of execution notice to the person subject to execution based on the household registration address of Wu Qinjian, and required him to perform the judgment. In order to evade execution, Wu Qinjian, the person under execution, privately removed the GPS on the pump truck and hid the pump truck at his friend Liang Junhui in the second half of 2012. In November of the same year, the execution personnel of the Yuelu District Court of Changsha City rushed to Jinan, Qingdao and other places for execution. Because the person to be executed was unable to find Wu Qinjian and the property that could be executed was not found, the execution failed again. The Yuelu District Court transferred the case to the public security organs for investigation on Wu Qinjian's suspected refusal to execute the judgment.
[Processing Results] On July 29, 2013, the public security organs arrested Wu Qinjian.On August 4 of the same year, with the cooperation of Wu Qinjian, the public security organ seized the pump truck he was hiding from Liang Junhui and then returned the above-mentioned vehicle to Zoomlion Heavy Industry. The Yuelu District Procuratorate of Changsha City filed a public prosecution with the Yuelu District Court on December 23, 2016, for the indictment No. 759 of Changyue Procuratorate Criminal Prosecution (2016) accused the defendant Wu Qinjian of refusing to execute the judgment. After trial, the Yuelu District Court held that the defendant Wu Qinjian had the ability to execute the effective judgment but refused to execute it, and the circumstances were serious and constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Given that he cooperated with the public security organs to seize and send the hidden pump truck back to Zoomlion after being arrested, and was able to truthfully confess the main criminal facts and voluntarily plead guilty, he may be given a lighter punishment at his discretion. On February 14, 2017, the Yuelu District Court made the criminal judgment No. (2016) Xiang 0104 Criminal First Instance 755, sentenced the defendant Wu Qinjian to one year in prison and probation for one year for refusing to execute the judgment.
[Typical Significance] In this case, Wu Qinjian, the person subject to execution, privately transferred his property to evade execution, resulting in the judgment being unable to be enforced. His subjective intention of resisting execution was obvious, the circumstances were serious, and the nature was bad, and criminal responsibility should be pursued according to law. The Yuelu District Court of Changsha City held him criminally liable in accordance with the law, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution.
Case 2: Peng Yonghong refused to enforce the court's judgment and ruling case
[Basic case] A loan contract dispute between China Construction Bank Hengshan County Branch (hereinafter referred to as "Hengshan Construction Bank") and Peng Yonghong, Liao Qinghua and others. On June 17, 2009, the Hengshan County Court made a judgment, limiting Peng Yonghong to repay the principal and interest of Hengshan Construction Bank's loan of 3.00897275 million yuan within 30 days after the judgment takes effect. On October 14, 2009, Hengshan Construction Bank applied for compulsory execution to the Hengshan County Court. After the execution case was accepted, Peng Yonghong did not automatically fulfill his repayment obligations within the prescribed time limit. On July 26, 2010, the Hengshan County Court ruled in accordance with the law to auction the property secured by Peng Yonghong when he borrowed money. After that, Peng Yonghong applied to the court for suspending the execution, proposed a specific repayment plan and promised to repay the loan on time. After obtaining the consent of Hengshan Construction Bank, the court suspended the auction, but Peng Yonghong failed to fulfill his promise. After repeated repetitions, Peng Yonghong only returned 1.89 million yuan on January 4, 2013. Later, Hengshan Construction Bank applied to the Hengshan County Court to initiate the auction process again. Bidder Fu Zhengchun and three others won the bid for 4.74 million yuan. Hengshan County Court made a transfer ruling and issued an announcement on April 15, 2014, ordering Peng Yonghong to move out of the auctioned house before May 15, 2014. However, Peng Yonghong refused to move out and piled up dirt and hung banners in front of the auctioned houses, causing bidders to be unable to move into the house for a long time, and their interests were seriously damaged, and the effective referee could not enforce it. The Hengshan County Court transferred the case to the public security organs for investigation on the crime of Peng Yonghong's suspicion of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling.
[Processing Results] On February 9, 2015, Peng Yonghong was criminally detained. The Hengshan County Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Hengshan County Court on October 8, 2015, with the indictment No. 118 of the Shanshan Procuratorate Public Prosecution Criminal Prosecution (2015) accused the defendant Peng Yonghong of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling. After trial, the Hengshan County Court held that the defendant Peng Yonghong refused to fulfill the obligation determined by the effective judgment by delaying and delaying methods. When the mortgaged property was auctioned, he refused to move out of the house and prevented the buyer from exercising his property rights. His behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute his judgment or ruling. Given that Peng Yonghong fulfilled the obligation to deliver the subject matter during the investigation of the case and was able to truthfully confess the crime after being arrested, he may be given a lighter punishment. On April 6, 2016, the Hengshan County Court made the criminal judgment No. 131 of Shanxingchu, sentenced Peng Yonghong to one year in prison and two years of probation for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. After the verdict was announced, Peng Yonghong appealed, and on September 1, 2016, Hengyang Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
[Typical Significance] When executing the effective judgment of mortgaged property, if the person subject to execution fails to fulfill the obligation to pay money, he should actively cooperate with the disposal of the mortgaged property, otherwise it will constitute an act of refusing to execute the judgment. During the execution of this case, after the court's auction transaction ruling came into effect, Peng Yonghong refused to deliver the subject matter and obstructed it many times and set up obstacles. His behavior was suspected of committing a crime.The Hengshan County Court held Peng Yonghong criminally responsible for the crime of refusing to execute judgments and rulings, and prompted him to fulfill his obligations, and executed the case in place, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the parties and safeguarding judicial authority.
Case 3: Lin Xinqun's refusal to execute the judgment and ruling case
[Basic case facts] The contract dispute case between Xiangyue Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xiangyue Company") and Lin Xinqun was conducted in the first instance of the Yuhu District Court of Xiangtan City and the second instance of the Xiangtan Intermediate Court, and made an effective judgment, ordering He Shengwu and Lin Xinqun to pay Xiangyue Company 223,000 yuan in payment and interest. After the case entered the execution procedure, the Xiangtan Intermediate Court designated the Xiangtan County Court to execute the case. The execution judge served the execution notice and the property reporting order to He Shengwu and Lin Xinqun, but the person subject to execution Lin Xinqun never fulfilled it and did not report the property status to the court. On July 9, 2013, due to refusal to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment, the Xiangtan County Court took judicial detention measures against the person subject to execution Lin Xinqun. In April 2016, the Xiangtan County Court inquired about Lin Xinqun's bank account and found that during the court execution period, multiple bank accounts under Lin Xinqun's name had more than 100 deposit and withdrawal transactions, of which the deposit flow was 131,719.84 yuan. Xiangyue Company reported the case to the Xiangtan County Public Security Bureau on October 13, 2015, demanding that the case be filed on the offence for suspected refusal to enforce the effective judgment and ruling of the People's Court. After review, Xiangtan County Public Security Bureau issued a notice of refusal to file a case. On November 10, 2015, Xiangyue Company filed a private lawsuit with Xiangtan County Court.
[Processing Results] After reviewing the relevant evidence, Xiangtan County Court believed that the defendant Lin Xinqun's behavior was suspected of constituting the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling, and decided to arrest Lin Xinqun. After receiving the court's decision, the public security organ arrested Lin Xinqun on February 18, 2016. After trial, the Xiangtan County Court held that the defendant Lin Xinqun was able to perform but refused to perform the effective judgment of the court, which was serious and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. On May 23, 2016, the Xiangtan County Court made the criminal judgment (2015) Xiang 0321 Criminal First Instance 00391, sentenced the defendant Lin Xinqun to one year in prison for refusing to execute the judgment and ruling. Lin Xinqun was dissatisfied and appealed to the Xiangtan Intermediate Court. The Xiangtan Intermediate Court rejected the appeal with the criminal judgment No. (2016) Xiang03 Criminal Final No. 206 and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical Significance] During the execution process, the bank account under the name of the person subject to execution, Lin Xinqun had deposits and withdrawals many times, with a cumulative deposit amount of more than RMB 130,000. He refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the court's effective judgment and ruling, and the intention to circumvent execution was very obvious. After the rights and interests of the applicant for execution in this case are infringed, he filed a private lawsuit with the court and won the case. This is a typical case of the applicant for execution taking up legal weapons to protect his own rights and interests.
Case 4: Liu Xinghua refused to enforce the court's judgment and ruling case
[Basic case] On November 29, 2010, the Xinning County Court made a judgment on the case of the financial loan contract dispute between Xinning County Rural Credit Cooperative and Liu Xinghua, Xiao Xiaomei and Liu Haijun, and ordered Liu Xinghua to repay the loan principal of Xinning County Rural Credit Cooperative and related interest. The guarantors Xiao Xiaomei and Liu Haijun bear joint and several liability within their respective guarantees; On August 20, 2011, the Xinning County Court issued a judgment on the Xinning County Branch of China Postal Savings Bank Co., Ltd. The case of financial loan contract dispute with Liu Haijun, Zeng Jian, Xiao Xiaomei and Liu Xinghua was ruled to repay the loan principal of 89,404.67 yuan and related interest of Xinning County Branch of China Postal Savings Bank Co., Ltd., and Liu Xinghua, Xiao Xiaomei and Zeng Jian were jointly and severally repayable; on May 15, 2012, the Xinning County Court made a judgment on the case of Jiang Qiong and Liu Xinghua's partnership agreement dispute, and ordered Liu Xinghua to repay Jiang Qiong 119,000 yuan and related interest; on December 31, 2012, the Xinning County Court made a judgment on the case of Li Guoxiang, Yang Shunlian and Liu Xinghua's partnership agreement dispute, and ordered Liu Xinghua to repay Li Guoxiang 230,800 yuan and related interest.
Xinning County Rural Credit Cooperative, China Postal Savings Bank Xinning County Branch, Jiang Qiong and Li Guoxiang applied to the Xinning County Court for compulsory enforcement of Liu Xinghua on April 18, 2011, October 9, 2011, November 14, 2012, and March 22, 2013 respectively. Liu Xinghua repaid part of the debt, but none of them were fulfilled.During the execution of the above-mentioned execution case, Liu Xinghua had a total income of more than 2.7 million yuan in project funds and other income. After paying the necessary expenses, the remaining amount was not used to fulfill the obligations determined by the court's judgment. On April 21, 2015, the Xinning County Court of Xinning decided to detain Liu Xinghua for fifteen days. Later, the Xinning County Court transferred the case to the public security organs.
[Processing Results] On May 6, 2015, Liu Xinghua was criminally detained by Xinning County Public Security Bureau and was arrested on June 12 of the same year. The Xinning County Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Xinning County Court on the indictment No. 40 of Xinning Procuratorate Public Prosecution Criminal Prosecution (2016) and filed a public prosecution with the Xinning County Court. After trial, the Xinning County Court held that Liu Xinghua's judgment on the People's Court was capable of fulfilling but refused to perform it, and the circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Given that he can truthfully confess his criminal facts after being arrested, voluntarily plead guilty in court, agree to perform the court's judgment, and repay the debt, he may be given a lighter punishment. On August 25, 2016, Xinning County Court made the criminal judgment No. (2016) Xiang0528 Criminal First Instance 42, sentenced the defendant Liu Xinghua to nine months in prison for refusing to execute the judgment.
[Typical Significance] Liu Xinghua, the person subject to execution in this case, had the ability to perform but refused to perform the effective judgment of the court. The Xinning County Court held him criminally responsible for refusing to execute the judgment, prompting Liu Xinghua to perform the court's judgment, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution.
Case 5: Dong Zhibiao refused to execute the court's judgment and ruling case
[Basic case] On December 3, 2015, the Yueyang County Court issued the execution notice and property reporting order to the person subject to execution, Dong Zhibiao, based on the civil judgment No. 1232 (2015) Yue Minchu No. 1232, which had legal effect, and ordered the defendant Dong Zhibiao to repay the loan of RMB 272,100 and the corresponding interest to the Yueyang County Rural Credit Cooperative, and informed him that he would fail to perform within the deadline and the court would enforce it in accordance with the law. On February 16, 2016, Dong Zhibiao sold the house he promised to repay the debts of Yueyang County Rural Credit Cooperation Cooperative to others for a price of 280,000 yuan. The proceeds were not used to fulfill the debt, and he concealed his whereabouts and evaded execution. The Yueyang County Court transferred the case to the public security organs for suspected refusal to execute the judgment and ruling.
[Processing Results] After being criminally detained by Yueyang County Public Security Bureau on May 5, 2016, Dong Zhibiao was arrested on May 19 of the same year and was released on bail on June 16 of the same year. Afterwards, the defendant Dong Zhibiao repaid 170,000 yuan of loan to the Yueyang County Rural Credit Cooperative. The Yueyang County Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Yueyang County Court on February 14, 2017, with the indictment No. 21 of Yuexian Procuratorate and Public Procuratorate (2017) accused the defendant Dong Zhibiao of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling. After trial, the Yueyang County Court held that the defendant Dong Zhibiao had the ability to perform the court's judgment and ruling but refused to perform the case, which was serious and constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling. Given that he was able to truthfully confess the crime after being arrested, voluntarily plead guilty, and fulfilled part of his repayment obligations, he may be given a lighter punishment. On March 9, 2017, the Yueyang County Court made the criminal judgment No. (2017) Xiang0621 Criminal First Instance No. 27, sentenced the defendant Dong Zhibiao to eight months in prison and one year of probation for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.
[Typical Significance] After receiving 280,000 yuan in house sale payment, the defendant Dong Zhibiao in the case had the ability to perform but refused to perform the effective judgment of the court. The Yueyang County Court of the Execution Court transferred the case to the public security organs, prompting Dong Zhibiao to partially fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment, and held him criminally responsible in accordance with the law for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant and judicial authority of the applicant.
Case 6: Yao Zheng refused to enforce the court's judgment and ruling case
[Basic case] The case of Liu Wenjian's lawsuit against Yao Zhengwei and others in the body rights dispute, Taoyuan County Court made the civil judgment (2009) Taominchu No. 249 on January 13, 2010, ordering the defendant Yao Zheng to pay the plaintiff Liu Wenjian RMB 80,856.2. Liu Wenjian applied for compulsory execution to the Taoyuan County Court on April 23, 2010. After the court issued a notice of compulsory execution, Yao Zheng refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment. Through the investigation by the executive judge, it was found that during the execution period, Yao Zheng and his wife Zhu completed the divorce procedures and disposal of his personal assets at the Taoyuan County Civil Affairs Bureau.Later, in order to conceal the permanent address and change the mobile phone number, Yao Zheng was missing, which made the judgment unable to be enforced. On October 14, 2010, the Taoyuan County Court served the execution notice to the person subject to execution Yao Zheng for the announcement, but he still refused to fulfill his compensation obligation in accordance with the effective judgment. The Taoyuan County Court then transferred the case to the Taoyuan County Public Security Bureau for investigation on Yao Zheng's suspected refusal to execute the judgment and ruling.
[Processing Results] On February 8, 2015, Yao Zheng was criminally detained by Taoyuan County Public Security Bureau and was later released on bail. Taoyuan County Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with Taoyuan County Court on March 9, 2016, on the indictment No. 14 of Xiangtao Procuratorate Criminal Prosecution (2016) accused the defendant Yao Zheng of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling. After trial, the Taoyuan County Court held that the defendant Yao Zheng refused to perform the obligations determined in the effective judgment in order to be able to perform the situation, and the circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Because he was able to truthfully confess the crime after being arrested, he showed remorse, he fulfilled the obligations determined in the effective judgment and obtained the understanding of the other party, and was given a lighter punishment. On March 24, 2016, Taoyuan County Court made the criminal judgment No. (2016) Xiang0725 Criminal First Instance No. 18, with Yao Zheng as a crime of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling, and a fine of RMB 10,000.
[Typical Significance] Some of the people subject to execution transferred their property in the name of divorce after the court's judgment, and then left the property to the other party, causing the applicant for execution and the execution judge to be unable to find their whereabouts and property under their name, which is a malicious evasion of execution. This is the case of Yao Zhengwei. The Taoyuan County Court transferred the case to the public security organs, prompting Yao Zheng to fulfill the compensation obligation determined by the effective judgment, and held him criminally responsible for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant and establishing judicial authority.
Case 7: Zhou Tuliang's refusal to enforce the court's judgment and ruling case
[Basic facts] Zhou Zaocai and Zhou Tuliang had a dispute over the distribution of compensation, so Zhou Zaocai sued Jiahe County Court. After the trial, the court ruled that Zhou Tuliang would pay Zhou Zao a one-time compensation of 150,000 yuan (including 25,500 yuan paid). After the judgment came into effect, Zhou Tuliang failed to fulfill the court's judgment, so Zhou Zaocai applied to the court for compulsory execution on October 8, 2015. During the execution process, Zhou Tuliang ignored the execution judge's talk on ordering him to perform the court's effective judgment. On November 6, 2015, the Jiahe County Court delivered a report of property order to Zhou Tuliang, but Zhou Tuliang refused to declare. On November 16, 2015, the Jiahe County Court held Zhou Tuliang judicially detained him in accordance with the law. Zhou Tuliang failed to fulfill the court's judgment and transferred all bank deposits under his name, causing the court's execution to fall into a deadlock. The Jiahe County Court transferred the case to the public security organs for investigation on Zhou Tuliang's suspected refusal to execute the judgment.
[Processing Results] Jiahe County Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Jiahe County Court on March 16, 2016 with the indictment No. 19 of Jiahe Procuratorate Public Prosecution Criminal Prosecution (2016) for the defendant Zhou Tuliang's crime of refusing to execute the judgment. After trial, the Jiahe County Court held that the defendant Zhou Tuliang had the ability to perform the judgment that had already taken legal effect on the People's Court and refused to perform it, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Given that he was able to truthfully confess the crime after being arrested, voluntarily plead guilty, repent, and fulfill the court's judgment, he may be given a lighter punishment according to law. On March 30, 2016, the Jiahe County Court made the criminal judgment No. (2016) Hunan 1024 Criminal First Instance No. 23, sentenced the defendant Zhou Tuliang to six months in prison and one year of probation for refusing to execute the judgment.
[Typical Significance] Zhou Tuliang, the person to be executed in this case, has the ability to perform, but he not only refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment of the People's Court, but also refused to report property to the court, and even failed to perform it after being detained, resulting in the court's judgment being unable to be enforced. The Jiahe County Court transferred the case to the public security organs to hold him criminally responsible for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment, prompting Zhou Tuliang to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution.
Case 8: Zhang Liangtian's refusal to execute the judgment and ruling case
[Basic case] The case of Yang Zihao v. Zhang Liangtian's motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute, Yongzhou Lingling District Court made the civil judgment No. 1780 (2015) on March 8, 2016, ordering Zhang Liangtian to compensate Yang Zihao for various economic losses of 173,000 yuan. After the judgment came into effect, Zhang Liangtian had not fulfilled his compensation obligations, so Yang Zihao applied to Lingling District Court for compulsory execution. After the court filed a case for execution, the execution judge served Zhang Liangtian with an execution notice and a property reporting order on April 29, 2016, and limited Zhang Liangtian to pay compensation within five days and report the property situation to the court. However, Zhang Liangtian still failed to fulfill his compensation obligations and declare property. On April 25, 2016, the execution judge included Zhang Liangtian on the list of dishonest debtors in accordance with the law. On May 16, 2016, the Lingling District Court made a decision to detain Zhang Liangtian for fifteen days in accordance with the law. Afterwards, Zhang Liangtian not only failed to fulfill his compensation obligation, but instead transferred the Longteng Automobile and Electrical Appliances Bank under his name to others on July 3, 2016, and left Yongzhou City with 15,000 yuan in transfer money to evade execution. Because Zhang Liangtian had no other property in his name, the effective judgment could not be enforced. The Lingling District Court then transferred the case to the public security organs for investigation on suspicion of refusing to execute the judgment.
[Processing Results] On October 28, 2016, Zhang Liangtian was arrested by the police in Dongguan City, Guangdong Province, and was criminally detained on November 3 of the same year. On November 9, 2016, Zhang Liangtian's relatives reached a mediation agreement with Yang Zihao, and Zhang Liangtian would pay Yang Zihao a one-time compensation of 80,000 yuan, and obtained the understanding of Yang Zihao and his family. All the execution cases were concluded. The Lingling District Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Lingling District Court on January 9, 2017, with the indictment No. 71 of Zero Procuratorate Public Prosecution Criminal Prosecution (2017) accused the defendant Zhang Liangtian of refusing to execute the judgment. After trial, the Lingling District Court held that the defendant Zhang Liangtian had the ability to perform the effective judgment of the People's Court but refused to perform the case, and the circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Given that the defendant Zhang Liangtian was able to truthfully confess his crime after being arrested, and actively compensated the applicant for execution after the incident and obtained an understanding, he could be given a lighter punishment. On January 23, 2017, the Lingling District Court made the criminal judgment No. (2017) Xiang 1102 Criminal First Instance 29, sentenced the defendant Zhang Liangtian to four months of detention for refusing to execute the judgment.
[Typical Significance] Zhang Liangtian, the person to be executed in the case, refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment by transferring property, and other means. The Lingling District Public Security Bureau, the Procuratorate, and the court cracked down on his criminal acts of refusing to execute the judgment in accordance with the law and held him criminally responsible, demonstrating the majesty of the law and effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution.
Case 9: Wu Zhigao refused to enforce the court's judgment and ruling case
[Basic case facts] On September 3, 2009, the Xinhua County Court made a civil judgment (2009) Xinfa Minchu No. 904 in the case of Wu Xingao v. Wu Zhigao's exclusion of obstruction dispute, ruling the defendant Wu Zhigao demolished the foundation of the house he had built in Chumeitian and Huanrutian, Group 2, Shazhou Village, Menggong Town, Xinhua County within one month after the judgment took effect, and restore the original status of the two hills of responsible fields. After the judgment came into effect, the defendant Wu Zhigao failed to consciously fulfill the effective judgment, and Wu Xingao applied for compulsory execution to the Xinhua County Court. After the Xinhua County Court filed a case for execution, it ordered Wu Zhigao to fulfill his obligations by issuing execution notices and issuing announcements, but he refused to perform any of them. Starting from January 1, 2012, Wu Zhigao began to build houses on the responsible fields of the two hills, causing the execution of the judgment to be in trouble. On April 13 of the same year, the Xinhua County Court decided to detain Wu Zhigao for fifteen days for refusing to fulfill the effective judgment of the People's Court. However, Wu Zhigao has not stopped illegally building houses. At the end of 2012, the second-story house on the responsible field was built. On July 26, 2013 and January 29, 2015, the Xinhua County Court decided to conduct the second and third judicial detentions on Wu Zhigao for fifteen days each. In July of the same year, the presiding judge and Menggong Town cadres went to Shazhou Village, Menggong Town to question Wu Zhigao. Wu Zhigao believed that the court did not dare to demolish his house and was unwilling to accept the execution settlement. Not only that, Wu Zhigao also began to build walls beside illegal buildings. Later, the Xinhua County Court transferred the case to the public security organs for Wu Zhigao's suspicion of refusing to execute the judgment.
[Processing Results] On June 24, 2016, the Xinhua County Public Security Bureau imposed criminal detention on Wu Zhigao and approved the arrest on July 8 of the same year. The Xinhua County Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Xinhua County Court on December 2, 2016, with the indictment No. 454 of the Xinhua County Procuratorate Public Prosecution Criminal Prosecution (2016) accused the defendant Wu Zhigao of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling. After trial, the Xinhua County Court held that the defendant Wu Zhigao had the ability to perform and refused to perform the effective judgment, and the circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. On February 28, 2017, the Xinhua County Court made the criminal judgment No. (2016) Hunan 1322 Criminal First Instance 472, sentenced the defendant Wu Zhigao to one year and six months in prison for refusing to execute the judgment and ruling.
[Typical Significance] Wu Zhigao, the person to be executed in this case, has the ability to perform, but he refuses to perform the effective judgment of the court, and his subjective intention of resisting execution is obvious, the circumstances are serious, and the nature is bad, and he should be severely punished according to law. The Xinhua County Court held him criminally responsible in accordance with the law, effectively maintaining judicial authority.
Case 10: Wu Shengyun's refusal to enforce the court's judgment and ruling case
[Basic case] The case of Shi Wenyuan and Shi Bangyong suing Wu Shengyun for the neighbouring rights dispute. Huayuan County Court made the civil judgment No. 61 (2010) Huaminchu Zi on June 9, 2010, ruling that Wu Shengyun would demolish the walls on the disputed passage within 15 days after the judgment took effect and restore the normal passage of the passage. After the judgment came into effect, Wu Shengyun failed to fulfill the obligation determined by the court's effective judgment, and Shi Wenyuan and Shi Bangyong applied for compulsory execution to the Huayuan County Court. On December 2, 2010, the Huayuan County Court issued an execution notice (2010) Huafazhizi No. 162 to the person subject to execution, ordering Wu Shengyun to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective legal documents, but Wu Shengyun did not fulfill it. On January 10, 2011, staff from Huayuan County Court came to Wu Shengyun's home in Group 4, Handu Village, , Huayuan Town, Huayuan County, and ordered Wu Shengyun to take the initiative to demolish the wall that blocked the passage. Wu Shengyun refused to execute it and verbally verbally and threatened. The execution judge ruled out the resistance on the spot and forced the removal of obstacles on the passage. After the execution judge left, Wu Shengyun built obstacles on the passage that day with bricks, continuing to block the passage. On April 17, 2011, the executive judge of Huayuan County Court went to the scene again to remove the obstacles blocking the passage by Wu Shengyun. However, after Wu Shengyun waited for the court staff to leave, he placed bricks, trees and other debris on the demolished wall that day to block the passage of the passage. Later, the Huayuan County Court transferred the case to the public security organs for Wu Shengyun's suspected refusal to execute the judgment and ruling.
[Processing Results] Wu Shengyun was summoned by the Huayuan County Public Security Bureau on April 17, 2015. The Huayuan County Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Huayuan County Court on February 29, 2016, on the indictment No. 8 of Huazhou Procuratorate Prosecutor Prosecutor (2016) for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment and ruling. After trial, the Huayuan County People's Court held that the defendant Wu Shengyun had the ability to perform but refused to perform the effective judgment, which was serious and constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. On May 20, 2016, the Huayuan County Court sentenced the defendant Wu Shengyun to one year in prison for refusing to execute the judgment and ruling with the criminal judgment No. 45 of Xiang 3124.
[Typical Significance] After the defendant Wu Shengyun forced the removal of obstacles that blocked the passage twice in the court, he piled up debris on the disputed passage that day to block the passage. The circumstances of refusal to execute were serious, and his refusal to execute was a manifestation of no repentance, which was a bad nature and had great social harm. The Huayuan County Court held him criminally liable for the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution.
