The Executive Bureau of Ganzhou Intermediate People’s Court has announced 5 typical cases of refusal to enforce crimes.
reminds everyone who is untrustworthy
that effective judgments must be performed
Judicial authority must not be challenged
Anyone who refuses to evade, hinder, or resist enforcement by the People’s Court in any way
will pay the due price
01
Lai XX refuses to execute the judgment, ruling the private prosecution case
Basic facts of the case
Wei XX, Lai XX, Xu XX private loan dispute, Huichang County People’s Court confirmed the effective legal document Lai and Xu should return the loan of 500,000 yuan, interest and attorney fees to Wei.
After the civil judgment took effect, Lai XX and Xu XX failed to perform the repayment obligation.
On August 26, 2016, Wei Moumou applied to the court for filing and enforcement. During the execution, the court served the execution notice and the property report order to Lai Moumou and his wife Xu in accordance with the law, and the defendant Lai Moumou signed to confirm receipt.
On February 20, 2017, under the auspices of the court, Wei Moumou and Lai Moumou negotiated and reached an implementation settlement agreement, agreeing: Wei Moumou agreed to Lai Moumou's return of the loan principal of 470,000 owed before February 16, 2018 After the yuan, no more interest will be calculated according to the judgment. The above payment shall be performed in installments. However, Lai XX did not perform his obligations as stipulated in the agreement.
From June 1 to 14, 2017, Lai Moumou told others to remit money to Wang Moumou's account, and then remitted 90,000 RMB to his unfrozen account through Wang Moumou's account. In August 2017, Lai Moumou changed his mobile phone number and left the place of residence, but did not report to the hospital. After that, Lai XX went to the coal yard of Zhongshan Village, Xinglian Township, Xingguo County to excavate the machine and received his salary in cash.
On August 8, 2017, the court transferred the case to Huichang County Public Security Bureau for investigation according to law, and the case was filed on October 17 of the same year. Later, the case was transferred to the Huichang County Procuratorate for review and prosecution, and the Huichang County People's Procuratorate issued a decision not to prosecute. The
private prosecutor Wei Hongyou filed a criminal private prosecution with the court on November 20, 2018.
Judgment results
Huichang County People’s Court held that, as the person subject to execution, refused to declare the property after the judgment of the people’s court took effect, and evaded by deliberately concealing property status, leaving the place of residence, changing mobile phone numbers, etc. The court's execution was serious and its behavior constituted a refusal to execute the sentence and a conviction.
Defendant Lai XX truthfully confessed his criminal facts after he was brought back to the case. He had a better attitude towards confession in the court trial and was given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. was then sentenced to one year in prison for Lai XX.
Typical meaning
During the execution of the case, the person subject to execution has the ability to perform but refuses to perform the obligation of repayment and evades court enforcement.
The enforcement court actively guides the parties to pursue the criminal responsibility of the person being enforced in accordance with the law through the private prosecution process. The enforcement court’s case filing department, criminal trial department and enforcement agency strengthen communication and coordination, promptly file the case, conduct timely trials, make judgments in accordance with the law, and prompt the defendant to repay the arrears. It provides a wider channel for applicants to better protect their rights and fight against crimes of refusal to execute. This case severely punishes the crime of refusal to execute, effectively promoting the execution of the case and effectively protecting the lawful rights and interests of the applicant for execution.
02
Liu's refusal to execute the judgment and ruling
Basic facts of the case
Regarding the case of private lending disputes between Liu and Xiong, the People’s Court of Du County made an effective judgment in accordance with the law, confirming Liu and Xiong The loan of 550,000 yuan and its interest should be returned to Guan XX. After the civil judgment of
came into effect, both Liu XX and Xiong XX failed to perform the repayment obligation. On September 19, 2016, Guan XX applied to the court for enforcement. During the execution, the court served the execution notice and the property report order to the two persons subject to execution in accordance with the law. The enforcement court found that the transaction amount of Liu X in the ICBC account was relatively large, and on February 10, 2017, according to the law, 35,000 yuan was deducted from the ICBC Liu X account to Guan X. There was still a principal of 495,000 yuan and interest. Not paid off. The
investigation also found that Liu Moumou has invested and operated in Dumingxin Paper Products Business with others from since 2018, and he also has an Audi A6L sedan under his name.As a substitute driver, I also earn about 7,000 yuan a month, and Xiong Moumou also has income as a micro business. However, Liu Moumou, Xiong Moumou and his wife refused to pay the remaining debt and interest. The court transferred the case to the public security organ for investigation on suspicion of a crime of refusal.
Judgment results
After the court heard, as the person to be executed, after the people’s court’s judgment becomes effective, has the ability to execute the judgment and ruling that has become legally effective but refuses to execute it, and his behavior constitutes refusal to execute Judgment and conviction. Defendant Liu Moumou truthfully confessed his criminal facts after he was brought back to the case, and he voluntarily confessed guilt can be given a lighter punishment.
was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for refusing to execute the sentence and conviction. The defendant refused to accept the appeal and filed an appeal. After trial by the Ganzhou Intermediate People's Court, the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
Typical meaning
During the execution of the case, the person subject to execution has the ability to perform but refuses to perform the obligation of repayment, evades court enforcement, and seriously damages judicial credibility.
The lawful judgment of this case, on the one hand, shows the people's court's firm attitude and determination to crack down on the crime of refusal to execute in accordance with the law. On the other hand, it warns the person subject to execution to timely perform the obligations determined by the effective document, effectively protecting the lawful rights and interests of the applicant for execution. , To maintain the dignity of the law.
03
Liu Moumou, Huang Moumou, Chen Moumou refused to execute the judgment, ruling
Basic facts of the case
The Shicheng court's effective document confirmed that Chen Moumou should return Liu Moumou’s loan principal of 540,000 yuan and interest. In addition to this case, Chen Moumou, the person subject to enforcement, has four enforcement cases in the court, with a total of 2.622 million yuan in principal and interest. After that, Chen XX, the person subject to execution, failed to perform the repayment obligations determined by the effective legal documents.
On August 13, 2015, Liu XX applied for compulsory execution. After investigation, it was found that Liu Moumou had preserved Chen Moumou’s house in Room 45904, Watson House, No. 6, Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, and a BMW car with the license plate of Ganzhou B25177. The executor Chen was not found. XX has deposits.
In July 2016, an applicant reported that the executors Liu XX and Huang XX (others outside the case) had colluded with the executor Chen when they knew that the B25177 BMW car had been seized by the court and was still within the seizure period. A certain seized vehicle was sold as a "black car" to others at a price of RMB 110,000, and the price obtained by was used to offset the debts owed by Chen XX to the executor Liu XX and the outsider Huang XX. After
, the person subject to execution Chen Moumou and the applicant Liu Moumou promised to pay more than 50,000 yuan to the court on many occasions, but they failed to fulfill them. The court also summoned the two on many occasions, and neither of them went to the court, and went to the residence of the two to find no results.
Judgment results
In April 2017, the court transferred the executor Chen Moumou, the applicant Liu Moumou, and the outsider Huang Moumou to the public security organ for investigation of the crime of illegally disposing of seized property by .
On December 21, 2017, the court sentenced the defendant Chen Moumou to three months of detention for the crime of illegally disposing of seized property; on March 12, 2019, it also sentenced the defendants Liu Moumou and Huang for the crime of illegally disposing of seized property. XX was detained for three months and two months.
Typical meaning
According to the provisions of Article 314 of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China: conceal, transfer, sell, deliberately damage property that has been seized, seized, or frozen by judicial organs. If the circumstances are serious, it shall be punished for a term of less than three years Imprisonment, criminal detention or fines.
The applicant Liu XX, the person under execution Chen XX, and the outsider Huang XX knew that the BMW brand small car had been seized by the judicial authority and during the seizure period, they still ignored the legal authority and sold the seized property, and Chen Moumou executed 5 cases in this court, involving the subject matter of 2.622 million principal and interest. The proceeds from the sale were not delivered to the court for distribution, which harmed the legitimate rights and interests of other creditors.
In order to better maintain judicial authority and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of other creditors, the court sentenced the above-mentioned three persons to the crime of illegally disposing of the seizure of property according to law, prompting them to receive their due punishment.
04
Yuan Moumou refused to execute the judgment or ruling
Basic facts of the case
Yuan Moumou had more points for afforestation and business turnoverA total of 292,800 yuan was borrowed from Long. And on December 9, 2014, the loan agreement was reissued, agreeing to pay off the loan in one month. After the expiration of the time limit, Yuan XX did not repay the debts on time.
On August 15, 2015, the People's Court of Dingnan County made a judgment in accordance with the law, confirming that Yuan XX should return Long XX's loan of 292,800 yuan and interest. After the legal document came into effect, Yuan XX did not perform his obligations.
On November 16, 2015, Long applied to the court for enforcement. During the execution of
, the execution notice and the property report order were served to the person subject to execution in accordance with the law.
On March 17, 2016, Yuan and his wife Yang agreed to divorce and agreed that the only self-built house located at No. 12, Wenming Road, Lishi Town, Dingnan County, belonged to Yang.
On January 19, 2017, because Yuan XX and Yang used the first-floor house of their self-built house as collateral to borrow money from Huang XX in 2014, the Dingnan County People’s Court ruled and commissioned an auction, and the ownership of the first-floor house was transferred To Zhu's name.
On February 3 of the same year, Yuan Moumou transferred the third-floor house of his self-built house at No. 12 Wenming Road, Lishi Town, Dingnan County to Ye Mou and went through transfer registration; after deducting the debt owed to Ye Mou, he received the purchase The model is 100,000 yuan.
On February 4 of the same year, Yuan transferred the 4th and 5th floors of the real estate to his ex-wife Yang. On March 11 of the same year, Yuan Moumou transferred the second floor of the real estate to Wen Mou, and on March 17th of the same year, the transfer registration was carried out, and a total of 280,000 yuan was collected in three installments. After
received the house purchase payment, the person subject to enforcement Yuan Moumou did not use it to repay the debt owed to Longmou, and transferred and withdrawn the house purchase money from his bank account several times, resulting in the judgment and ruling being unenforceable.
Judgment results
On April 19, 2018, the court transferred the executor to the public security for investigation on suspicion of refusal to execute the crime. On June 25 of the same year, Yuan Moumou was arrested and brought to justice; after he was brought to justice, he truthfully confessed his main criminal facts. On June 29, the defendant Yuan’s son reached a repayment agreement with Long, and repaid 50,000 yuan to Long on the same day. The remaining amount was agreed to be paid by Yuan in installments before June 31, 2020. paragraph. In the end, the court sentenced Yuan Moumou to six months’ imprisonment for refusal to execute the sentence and the verdict.
Typical meaning
The person subject to execution in this case has the ability to perform divorce agreement with his wife to transfer all the property under his name to his wife’s name, resulting in the judgment being unenforceable and the circumstances are serious . The court transferred the criminal clues to the public security organs to initiate criminal investigation procedures, and convicted and sentenced them in accordance with the law, effectively punishing the refusal to execute and maintaining judicial authority.
05
Tang XX refused to execute the judgment and ruling
Basic facts
On July 2, 2014, Anyuan County People’s Court ruled that Tang XX and Du (the husband of Tang XX) jointly repay Du XX's loan of 150,000 yuan And interest and liquidated damages of 20,000 yuan. On January 8, 2018, the court ruled in accordance with the law that Tang XX and Du must return Xiao XX's loan of 300,000 yuan and interest. After the
judgment came into effect, Tang and Du refused to perform the obligations determined in the effective document, and the applicant in the second case applied for enforcement. During the execution of
, the court delivered an execution notice and a property report order to Tang XX and Du according to the law, but the second person under enforcement neither actively performed their obligations nor declared their personal property to the court.
In July 2017, the residences of Tang, Du, and Xue (Du's mother) in Qijiao Village, Xinshan Town, Anyuan County were expropriated and demolished, and received more than 800,000 yuan in compensation for demolition. In order to prevent the funds from being frozen by the court, Tang and Xue used other people’s bank accounts to receive compensation for demolition. After receiving the compensation, they were all used to return relatives’ debts and family expenses. During this period, Du was in Ganzhou Drug Rehabilitation Center compulsory detoxification.
On November 15, 2018, the court detained Tang XX for 15 days in accordance with the law, and transferred the case to the public security agency for investigation on Tang XX's suspected refusal.
Judgment result
The court held that after the trial, the defendant Tang XX had the ability to execute the judgment and ruling of the people’s court but refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious and his behavior constituted a crime of refusal to execute the judgment or ruling.
Defendant Tang Moumou was able to truthfully confess his crimes after he was brought back to the case. He was confessed and could be given a lighter punishment according to law. During the trial, the defendantTang’s family repaid all the arrears of the applicant Xiao and part of the arrears of the applicant Du, and obtained the understanding of the two applicants and can be given a lighter punishment as appropriate.
On May 29, 2019, the court sentenced the defendant Tang to fixed-term imprisonment of one year and six months for refusal to execute the sentence and conviction.
Typical meaning
In this case, Tang XX was able to perform but refused to perform the effective judgment , and at the same time, after receiving the demolition compensation payment, he concealed his property in another’s bank account, later transferred it by himself and spent to avoid court enforcement. Seriously violated the lawful rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement.
In this case, the enforced is warned that the act of playing tricks to deceive the court is challenging the judicial authority and will only harm oneself and will surely be punished by the law.
If there are clues to the dishonest person
welcome to report
to fight against dishonesty
We will never be merciless!
Are you "looking" at me?
