Home > English > Laws & Regulations > Full Text
Pkulaw Window English 中文
Favorite Download Print Share Big Small

Ten Model Cases concerning People's Courts Combating Crimes of Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling according to the Law Issued by the Supreme People's Court

最高人民法院发布10起人民法院依法打击拒不执行判决、裁定罪典型案例

【CLI Code】 CLI.3.315400(EN)  Statement

  • Ten Model Cases concerning People's Courts Combating Crimes of Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling according to the Law Issued by the Supreme People's Court
  • 最高人民法院发布10起人民法院依法打击拒不执行判决、裁定罪典型案例

  • (June 5, 2018)
  • (2018年6月5日)

  • 1. People v. Cao A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Zheng'an County, Guizhou province
  • 1、贵州省正安县人民法院判决的曹某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • 2. People v. Shi A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Changjiang Li Autonomous County
  • 2、海南省昌江黎族自治县人民法院判决的施某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • 3. People v. Li A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Zhaodong City, Heilongjiang province
  • 3、黑龙江省肇东市人民法院判决的李某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • 4. Xiangyue Logistics Co., Ltd. v. Lin A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Xiangtan County, Hunan province
  • 4、湖南省湘潭县人民法院判决的林某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • 5. People v. Zhou A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Lin'an City, Zhejiang province
  • 5、浙江省临安市人民法院判决的周某某拒不执行判决案
  • 6. People v. Xiao A for Illegal Disposition of Seized Property at the People's Court of Xihu District, Nanchang City, Jiangxi province
  • 6、江西省南昌市西湖区人民法院判决的肖某某非法处置查封的财产案
  • 7. People v. Xu A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Xiangshui County, Jiangsu province
  • 7、江苏省响水县人民法院判决的徐某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • 8. Yuan A Fei et al. v. Zang A Wen for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Fangshan District, Beijing
  • 8、北京市房山区人民法院判决的藏某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • 9. People v. Chen A and Xu A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Licheng District, Putian City, Fujian province
  • 9、福建省莆田市荔城区人民法院判决的陈某、徐某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • 10. People v. Chongqing Rongtai Plastic Co., Ltd. and Liu A She for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling at the People's Court of Hechuan District, Chongqing
  • 10、重庆市合川区人民法院判决的重庆蓉泰塑胶有限公司、刘某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • Case No. 1
  • 案例一
  • People v. Cao A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling
  • 曹某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • [Basic facts]
  • 【基本案情】
  • In Li A v. Cao A for tort liability dispute, the People's Court of Zheng'an County, Guizhou province entered the Civil Judgment No. 1313 [2013], First, Civil Division, Zheng'an in August 2013, ordering defendant Cao A to compensate Li A for all the expenses amounting to more than 200,000 yuan incurred by the injury to the person caused by providing labor service. After the judgment came into effect, Cao A failed to discharge his obligations within the period as fixed in the judgment. In March 2014, Li A applied to People's Court of Zheng'an County for enforcement. In the course of enforcement, the person subject to enforcement, Cao A, reached a compromise on satisfaction in installments with Li A. Cao A made payments amounting to 100,000 yuan but failed to pay the remaining more than 100,000 yuan.
  • 李某与曹某某侵权责任纠纷一案,贵州省正安县人民法院于2013年8月作出的(2013)正民初字第1313号民事判决,判令被告曹某某赔偿李某因提供劳务而遭受人身损害赔偿的各项费用共计20余万元。判决生效后,曹某某未在判决确定的期限内履行义务,李某于2014年3月向正安县人民法院申请强制执行。在执行过程中,被执行人曹某某与李某达成分期履行的和解协议,曹某某先后共计履行了10万元后,尚余10余万元一直未履行。
  • In the course of execution, the court ascertained that the Construction Project Office of Zheng'an County demolished a 433.50-square-meter building and a 101.64-square-meter ground floor retail unit of Cao A in July 2013 and gave him four apartments and three ground floor retail units in demolition compensation. On May 28, 2014, the court seized a placement apartment of Cao A. In order not to pay debt, Cao A and Jia A registered a divorce in August 2014, with a divorce agreement stipulating that all the apartments in demolition compensation belonged to Jia A. In December 2014, Cao A and Jia A executed a housing transfer agreement with Xiang A, transferring the apartment seized by the court to Xiang A at a price of 205,000 yuan. Cao A continued not to discharge his obligations as determined by the judgment and disappeared, rendering the judgment unsatisfied for a long time.
  • 法院执行过程中查明,正安县城建设工程指挥部于2013年7月拆迁被执行人曹某某的房屋433.50㎡,门面101.64㎡,拆迁返还住房4套、门面3间。2014年5月28日法院查封了曹某某安置房一套。为逃避债务履行,曹某某与贾某某于2014年8月办理了离婚登记,离婚协议约定所有返还房产均归贾某某所有。2014年12月曹某某、贾某某与向某某夫妇签订房屋转让协议,将法院查封的住房以20.50万元转让给向某某。其后,曹某某继续不履行判决确定的义务,且下落不明,致使该判决长期得不到执行。
  • The court in Zheng'an County referred the lead that Cao A was suspected of the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling to the Public Security Bureau of Zheng'an County for case filing for investigation. Cao A surrendered himself to the Public Security Bureau of Zheng'an County on March 30, 2017 and was placed in criminal detention that same day. During the detention, the ex-wife of the person subject to enforcement, Jia A, voluntarily paid the debt owed and the interest accrued thereon until the deferred satisfaction at the court on April 5, 2017. At the public prosecution instituted by the procuratorial agency, the People's Court of Zheng'an County sentenced Cao A to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year for the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling on August 8, 2017.
  • 正安县法院遂将曹某某涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定罪的线索移交正安县公安局立案侦查。被执行人曹某某于2017年3月30日向正安县公安局投案自首,当天被刑事拘留。在拘留期间,被执行人的前妻贾某某于2017年4月5日主动到法院交纳了欠款及迟延履行期间的债务利息。经检察机关提起公诉,2017年8月8日正安县人民法院以拒不执行判决、裁定罪,判处曹某某有期徒刑一年。
  • [Significance]
  • 【典型意义】
  • The person subject to enforcement in this case was capable of payment, but he transferred all the property to his wife by divorcing his wife by agreement and sold the apartment seized by the court without permission, rendering the enforcement of the judgment impossible. As the circumstances were serious, he was guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. The court referred its criminal lead as legally required to the public security authority for criminal liability proceedings and conducted conviction and sentencing according to the law, so as to effectively punish the crime of refusal to satisfaction and defend the judicial authority. The ex-wife of the person subject to enforcement was caused to voluntarily help the person subject to enforcement pay all his debts, so as to effectively protect the lawful rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement and produce good legal and social effects.
  • 本案被执行人具有履行能力,以和妻子协议离婚的方法,将其名下全部财产转移到妻子名下,并私自将法院查封的房产予以出售,致使判决无法执行,情节严重,构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。法院将其犯罪线索依法移交公安机关启动刑事追究程序,并依法定罪判刑,有效惩治了拒执犯罪,维护了司法权威。同时促使被执行人的前妻主动帮助被执行人全部履行债务,有效保障了申请执行人的合法权益,法律效果和社会效果良好。
  • Case No. 2
  • 案例二
  • People v. Shi A for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling
  • 施某某拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • [Basic facts]
  • 【基本案情】
  • Defendant Shi A was the legal representative of Changyuan Ecological Agriculture Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "Changyuan Cooperative") in Changjiang Li Autonomous County, Hainan province. In October 2012, in order to construct greenhouses for farming as needed at a construction site, Changyuan Cooperative and Zhao A executed a vegetable greenhouse cooperation contract. Later a dispute arose between the parties in the course of settlement of construction costs. Zhao A brought action in the court against Changyuan Cooperative, and the People's Court of Changjiang Li Autonomous County (hereinafter referred to as the "Changjiang Court") entered the Civil Judgment No. 268 [2014], First, Civil Division, Changjiang on July 18, 2014, ordering Changyuan Cooperative to pay Zhao A construction costs in the amount of 1,003,500 yuan and liquidated damages for past due payment. At the appeal from Changyuan Cooperative, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Hainan province entered the Civil Judgment No. 23 [2014], Final, Civil Division III, No. 2 Intermediate, Hainan on November 24, 2014, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment.
  • 被告人施某某系海南省昌江黎族自治县昌缘生态农业专业合作社(以下简称昌缘合作社)法定代表人。2012年10月,因工地需搭建大棚种植,昌缘合作社和赵某签订了瓜菜大棚施工合同。后在结算工程款的过程中双方产生纠纷。赵某将昌缘合作社起诉至法院,昌江黎族自治县人民法院(下称昌江法院)于2014年7月18日作出(2014)昌民初字第268号民事判决,判令昌缘合作社支付赵某工程款1003500元及逾期付款违约金。昌缘合作社上诉后,海南省第二中级人民法院于2014年11月24日作出(2014)海南二中民三终字第23号民事判决书,判决驳回上诉,维持原判。
  • As, after the judgment took effect, Changyuan Cooperative failed to discharge its obligations within the period as fixed in the judgment, Zhao A applied to Changjiang Court for enforcement. As it was found, upon the completion of the construction of the greenhouses, Changyuan Cooperative applied to the Agricultural Bureau of Changjiang County for a subsidy for agricultural greenhouses, received a subsidy in the amount of 3,226,800 yuan from the financial authority of Changjiang County, and thus was capable of discharging. Changjiang Court docketed the case for enforcement and issued an enforcement notice and a property reporting order to Changyuan Cooperative, but Changyuan Cooperative still refused to discharge its obligations and declare its property. The enforcement court hence seized the operation rights in the 270-mu land located in Shuangtang Village, Haiwei Town, Changjiang County of Changyuan Cooperative and the vegetable greenhouses and related facilities thereon according to the law. Shi A decided without permission to dispose of said land and facilities that had been seized. Some greenhouses were leased to others for farming, and some greenhouses were used for own farming. Shi A refused to pay the rental and proceeds of farming acquired to the court. In response to the above-mentioned refusal by Changyuan Cooperative and Shi A, Changjiang Court took 15-day judicial detention measures against Shi A according to the law on January 20, 2016. At the expiry of the period of detention, the person subject to enforcement still refused to discharge the obligations.
  • 判决发生法律效力后,因昌缘合作社未在判决确定的期限内履行义务,赵某向昌江法院申请强制执行。据查,在大棚建成后,昌缘合作社曾向昌江县农业局申报农业大棚补贴,并从昌江县财政领取大棚补贴款3226800元,具有履行能力。昌江法院立案执行后,向昌缘合作社发出执行通知书和报告财产令,昌缘合作社仍拒不履行义务,且拒绝申报财产。执行法院遂依法查封昌缘合作社位于昌江县海尾镇双塘村的270亩土地经营权及地上的瓜菜大棚及相关设施。施某某擅自决定将已查封的上述土地及设施予以处置,部分出租给他人种植,部分大棚用于自己种植,所得租金及种植收益拒绝上缴法院。针对昌缘合作社及施某某的以上拒执行为,昌江法院于2016年1月20日依法对施某某采取司法拘留十五日的措施。拘留期限届满后,被执行人仍不履行。
  • The enforcement court hence referred the lead that Shi A was suspected of crime to the public security authority. Based on the investigations by public security authority, the procuratorate instituted a public prosecution. Changjiang Court entered a judgment according to the law, convicting defendant Shi A of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling and sentencing him to a fixed-term imprisonment of two years.
  • 执行法院遂将施某某涉嫌犯罪的线索移交公安机关。经公安机关侦查,检察院提起公诉,昌江法院依法作出判决,认定被告人施某某构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪,判处有期徒刑二年。
  • [Significance]
  • 【典型意义】
  • In this case, Changyuan Cooperative, as the person subject to enforcement, refused to declare its property and evaded satisfaction by various means, notwithstanding its capability of discharging, and its legal representative still failed to satisfy the judgment after being placed under judicial detention measures, causing serious damage to the applicant for enforcement. Changyuan Cooperative was in the category of "one is capable of satisfying a judgment or ruling but refuses to do so and falls under serious circumstances" and guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. This case involved unit crime. As defendant Shi A was the legal representative of the unit and the directly responsible person in charge, Shi A should be criminally liable for the unit committing the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or rulings. That the court convicted and sentenced Shi A to actual punishment according to the law conformed to the law, embodied the severe crackdown on the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling, and was of certain guiding significance for holding natural persons criminally liable according to the law in unit crime.
  • 本案中,作为被执行人的昌缘合作社在具有履行能力的情况下,拒绝申报财产,以各种手段逃避执行,而且其法定代表人在被采取司法拘留措施后仍不执行,致使申请执行人遭受较大损失,属于“有能力执行而拒不执行,情节严重”的情形,构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。同时本案属于单位犯罪,被告人施某某为单位法定代表人,系直接负责的主管人员,对于单位实施的拒不执行判决、裁定犯罪应当承担刑事责任。法院依法对施某某定罪并判处实刑,符合法律规定,体现了对拒执罪的严厉打击,对于在单位犯罪中依法追究自然人的刑事责任也具有一定指导意义。
  • Case No. 3
  • 案例三
  • People v. Li A Bin for Refusal to Satisfy Judgment or Ruling
  • 李某彬拒不执行判决、裁定案
  • [Basic facts]
  • 【基本案情】
  • From June to October 2013, defendant Li A Bin provided a guarantee in respect of a fish feed sale contract concluded between his cousin Li A You and Luo A. As Li A You defaulted on due payment for the goods, Luo A brought action in the court against Li A Bin and Li A You in February 2015. The People's Court of Zhaodong City, Heilongjiang province took property preservation measures against the fishponds operated by Li A Bin and the fish therein worth 350,000 yuan after docketing the case and entered the Civil Judgment No. 154 [2015], First, Commercial Division, Zhaodong on June 4, 2015, ordering Li A Bin to make payment in the amount of more than 330,000 yuan to Luo Yuan for the feed within ten days from the judgment taking effect.
  • 2013年6月至10月间,被告人李某彬为其堂哥李某有与罗某签订的鱼饲料买卖合同提供担保。后因李某有未按期支付货款,罗某于2015年2月将李某彬、李某有诉至法院。黑龙江省肇东市人民法院立案后,对李某彬经营的鱼池及池中价值35万元的鱼采取了财产保全措施,并于2015年6月4日作出(2015)肇商初字第154号民事判决,判令李某彬于判决生效后十日内给付罗某饲料款33万余元。
  • As, after the judgment took effect, Li A Bin failed to discharge his obligations within the statutory period, Luo A applied to the court for enforcement. The People's Court of Zhaodong City docketed the case for enforcement on August 13, 2015 and issued an enforcement notice and a property reporting order to Li A Bin. Li A Bin failed to discharge his obligations within the specified period, refused to declare property, sold the live fish worth 350,000 yuan in the seized fishponds, and fled with the proceeds, rendering the enforcement of a court judgment or ruling impossible.
  • 判决生效后,李某彬未在法定期限内履行义务,罗某遂向法院申请强制执行。肇东市人民法院于2015年8月13日立案执行,依法向李某彬发出执行通知书和报告财产令。李某彬未在规定期限内履行义务,又拒绝申报财产,并将已被查封的鱼池中价值35万元的活鱼卖掉后携款逃走,致使法院判决、裁定无法执行。
  • The People's Court of Zhaodong City referred the lead that Li A Bin was suspected of crime to the public security authority. The Public Security Bureau of Zhaodong City filed the case for investigation, arrested Li A Bin on September 5, 2016, and placed him in criminal detention according to the law. Upon the public security authority ceasing the investigation, the People's Procuratorate of Zhaodong City filed a public prosecution against defendant Li A Bin suspected of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling on 16 November 2016.
  • 肇东市人民法院将李某彬涉嫌犯罪的线索移送公安机关。肇东市公安局立案侦查,于2016年9月5日将李某彬抓获,依法予以刑事拘留。经公安机关侦查终结,肇东市人民检察院于2016年11月16日以被告人李某彬涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定罪,向肇东市人民法院提起公诉。
  • The court held upon trial that defendant Li A Bin sold the property seized in accordance with the law by the people's court without its permission, failed to hand over the proceeds to the people's court for preservation or pay the applicant for enforcement, and refused to report the information on his property; and he was capable but refused to satisfy an effective judgment or ruling of the people's court, fell under serious circumstances, and was guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. Defendant Li A Bin was sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and six months.
  • 法院审理认为,被告人李某彬未经人民法院许可,擅自将人民法院依法查封的财产出卖,亦未将价款交给人民法院
  • [Significance]
  • When the court issued an enforcement notice and property reporting order to defendant Li A Bin, who was the person subject to en
  • ......
  • ......
  • Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
  • Mobile: +86 133-1157-0712
  • Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
  • database@chinalawinfo.com
© Pkulaw (www.pkulaw.com) provides various professional solutions in such fields as legal information, law knowledge and legal software. Pkulaw provides you with abundant reference materials. When you invoke articles of laws and regulations, please check them with the standard texts.
You are welcome to view all our products and services. Pkulaw Express:How to quickly find information you need? What are the new features of Pkulaw V6? s
智能检索