案例1：陈联会拒不支付劳动报酬案

——被执行人法定代表人拖欠73名公司职工14万余元工资后逃匿，被依法追究拒不支付劳动报酬罪，庭审期间自觉履行了法定义务。

执行法院：重庆市开县法院

执行案由：追索劳动报酬纠纷

申请执行人：袁祖桃等65人

被执行人：重庆同发针织有限公司

【案情摘要】

2008年12月5日，陈联会、雷必容出资设立重庆同发针织有限公司，从事针织品加工销售业务，公司住所地为重庆市开县。截止2011年6月，重庆同发针织有限公司累计拖欠袁祖桃等73名职工工资共计144474元。公司法定代表人陈联会逃避支付工人工资。同年7月、8月，重庆同发针织有限公司职工为此多次群体上访。8月10日，开县人力资源和社会保障局对陈联会下达了限期支付拖欠职工工资告知书，陈联会未予理会。2011年9月，袁祖桃等65人依法向开县人民法院提起诉讼。同年11月，开县人民法院依法判决，由重庆同发针织有限公司支付袁祖桃等65人工资合计124311元。

由于重庆同发针织有限公司未在规定时间内履行义务，袁祖桃等65人依法申请强制执行。开县人民法院受理执行后，查封了重庆同发针织有限公司遗留在租用场地内的机器设备。经依法评估后，开县人民法院于2012年委托公开拍卖。由于机器设备陈旧，无人竞买，两次降价后流拍。开县人民法院对以上设备进行公告变卖，亦无人购买，申请执行人也不同意以该设备抵偿债务。期间，陈联会始终不予露面。

2014年1月26日，开县人民法院经研究后认为，重庆同发针织有限公司拒不支付劳动报酬，涉及人数众多，数额较大，其行为涉嫌犯罪，于是决定移送公安机关追究其刑事责任。同年5月22，陈联会在昆明机场被公安机关刑事拘留。刑事拘留期间，陈联会通过家人向袁祖桃等65人支付了所欠的全部工资124311元。

2014年11月27日，开县人民检察院向法院提起公诉，要求追究陈联会拒不支付劳动报酬罪。在案件审理过程中，陈联会将没有到法院起诉的另外8名职工的19313元劳动报酬也支付完毕。考虑到陈联会有认罪悔罪的实际行动，开县人民法院于2015年1月9日以拒不支付劳动报酬罪从轻判处陈联会有期徒刑三年，缓刑三年，并处罚金人民币10000元。

【典型意义】

在该系列案执行过程中，执行法院高度重视追索劳动报酬等与群众生计休戚相关的案件执行，对拒不履行生效法律文书的被执行人，严格按照《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部关于开展集中打击拒不执行法院判决、裁定等犯罪行为专项行动有关工作的通知》的要求，加强与公安、检察机关的沟通联系，依法进行了打击，提高执行威慑力，效果良好。该案顺利执结再次表明，人民法院判决一经生效就具有法律强制力，当事人都必须自觉执行，不能心存侥幸，抗拒、逃避执行有可能被依法追究刑事责任。

案例2：黄起滨拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人拒不履行生效调解书，将银行存款转移至案外人名下，致使案件无法执行，被依法追究拒不执行判决、裁定刑事责任。

执行法院：福建三明市大田县法院

执行案由：继承纠纷案

申请执行人：林兰香

被执行人：黄起滨

【案情摘要】

2014年3月25日，福建省三明市大田县人民法院对原告林兰香与被告黄起滨继承纠纷一案依法作出（2014）大民初字第958号民事调解书，确定黄起滨须于2014年4月2日前付清林兰香继承余款19万元。调解书生效后，黄起滨未如期履行义务，林兰香向大田县人民法院申请强制执行。大田县人民法院受理执行申请后，依法向黄起滨送达了执行通知书，并裁定冻结、扣划黄起滨的银行存款或扣留、提取其相应价值的收入。大田县人民法院在作出裁定后，以当面谈话等方式责令黄起滨履行调解书所确定的义务，但黄起滨仍拒不履行。之后，大田县人民法院通过银行查询，查明黄起滨曾在调解书生效后，将其帐户中的存款130余万元转入案外人名下，且其无法说明转款事由，大田县人民法院遂以黄起滨涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪移送公安机关立案侦查。

案发后，黄起滨于2014年11月28日主动向公安机关投案，并于次日与与林兰香达成执行和解，支付林兰香执行款及利息共人民币23万元，林兰香书面请求对黄起滨从轻处理。大田县人民法院经开庭审理后认为，被告人黄起滨对人民法院依法作出的具有执行内容的并发生法律效力的调解书有能力执行而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为已构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。鉴于被告人黄起滨能主动投案，如实供述犯罪事实，属于自首，同时，其支付了全部执行款及利息，取得申请执行人的书面谅解，可从轻处罚。据此，大田县人民法院以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处被告人黄起滨拘役六个月，缓刑六个月。

【典型意义】

经人民法院主持达成的调解协议具有与生效判决、裁定同等的效力，生效调解书也属于拒不执行判决、裁定罪中的“判决、裁定”范畴。本案被执行人黄起滨在调解书生效后，将其130余万元银行存款转至案外人账户，致使生效调解书无法履行，已经构成了拒不执行判决、裁定罪。本案还从另一个角度说明，对那些涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪的被执行人，如能主动投案并积极履行义务，依照宽严相济的刑事政策，可以得到从轻处罚。

案例3：许军燕非法处置查封、扣押、冻结财产案

——被执行人有履行能力，却转移财产逃避执行，被以涉嫌构成非法处置查封、扣押、冻结财产罪移送追究刑事责任

执行法院：浙江省嘉兴市南湖区法院

执行案由：交通事故人身损害赔偿

执行申请人：徐守龙

被执行人：高雪珍

【案情摘要】

2006年3月5日，高雪珍驾驶二轮摩托车与徐守龙发生碰撞，造成徐守龙受伤。经交警部门认定，高雪珍负事故全部责任，经鉴定徐守龙伤势构成八级伤残。徐守龙将高雪珍诉至浙江省嘉兴市南湖区人民法院，要求支付赔偿款107026.45元。经嘉兴市南湖区人民法院调解，双方当事人于2007年5月18日达成（2007）南民一初字第380号民事调解书，确定被告高雪珍赔偿原告徐守龙医药费、住院伙食补助费、护理费、误工费、交通费、伤残补助金、鉴定费、精神损害抚慰金等损失合计83800元，并定于2007年12月底前分三次付清。该民事调解书生效后，高雪珍并未如约履行，徐守龙遂于2007年8月6日申请强制执行。

该案执行过程中，嘉兴市南湖区人民法院未发现被执行人高雪珍有可供执行财产，遂于2007年11月2日终结本次执行程序。2012年底，随着嘉兴市南湖区“三改一拆”活动展开，申请执行人发现被执行人高雪珍家庭所有的猪舍列入拆迁范围，应当有相应的款项予以补偿，于是向法院申请恢复执行。嘉兴市南湖区人民法院经查，2013年5月，高雪珍家与嘉兴市南湖区新丰镇人民政府就猪棚拆除有相关补偿，且相关猪舍拆迁协议系该家庭以许军燕（高雪珍之子）名义与拆迁单位签订。2013年7月19日，嘉兴市南湖区人民法院对补偿单位新丰镇竹林村村委会送达协助执行通知书，要求协助冻结补偿款项共计155492.18元（含迟延履行期间的债务利息）。其后，许军燕于2013年12月4日通过在中国农业银行新丰支行挂失补偿款的农行存单，转移该笔补偿款人民币226170元至张理伟（高雪珍之女婿）账户。嘉兴市南湖区人民法院遂以许军燕涉嫌构成非法处置查封、扣押、冻结财产罪移送公安机关侦查。在公安机关侦查过程中，被执行人高雪珍于2015年1月20日将全部赔偿款85800元及迟延履行期间的债务利息82118.22元交至执行法院。有关机关对许军燕的刑事追责程序正在进行中。

【典型意义】

被执行人之子许军燕非法处置查封、扣押、冻结财产的行为已经涉嫌构成犯罪。正是在公安机关启动刑事追责程序之后，被执行人主动履行了执行义务，从而促成了本案的执结，维护了交通肇事受害人的合法权利。在当前被执行人抗拒、逃避执行现象多发，“执行难”问题突出的背景下，人民法院依法启动刑事追责程序，对于依法实现判决、裁定确定的权利义务关系，维护司法秩序、增强司法权威，提高司法公信力，无疑具有重要的导向作用。

案例4：曾木生涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人在判决生效后转移财产，拒不履行赔偿义务，被以涉嫌拒不履行判决、裁定罪移送立案侦查。

执行法院：广西富川县法院

执行案由：交通肇事损害赔偿纠纷

申请执行人：何品文

被执行人：高顺举、曾木生

【案情摘要】

2014年3月22日,曾木生雇请司机高顺举驾驶轻型厢式货车在广西贺州市富川瑶族自治县石家乡公路上行驶，与行人何平（系申请执行人何品文之子、滕梅之继子）发生碰撞，造成何平当场死亡。富川瑶族自治县公安局交通管理大队经调查后，认定司机高顺举承担主要责任，何平承担次要责任。2014年6月9日，富川瑶族自治县人民法院判决高顺举、曾木生互负连带责任，赔偿何品文、滕梅因何平死亡造成的死亡赔偿金、丧葬费、精神抚慰金等共计349695.14元。

判决生效后，申请执行人何品文、滕梅于2014年7月24日向富川县人民法院申请强制执行，该院受理后于7月30日向高顺举、曾木生发出执行通知书，但两被执行人未主动履行义务。经执行法院查明，被执行人曾木生于2014年6月25日将自己名下的一辆小型普通客车和一辆货车转让给了他人，于2014年6月26日到工商行政部门注销了其在贺州市八步区经营的裕生食品批发部。经富川县人民法院多次调查，未发现另一被执行人高顺举有可供执行的财产或线索。

由于被执行人曾木生在法院判决已发生法律效力的情况下，为逃避债务，将名下财产予以变卖、处置，造成法院判决无法执行，情节严重，其行为涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。2014年12月8日，富川县人民法院将曾木生移送富川县公安局立案侦查；同年12月31日，曾木生被富川县人民检察院批准逮捕。2015年1月23日，双方当事人达成执行和解协议，由被执行人曾木生先行支付申请执行人15万元，余款分期给付履行。对曾木生的刑事追责程序仍在进行。

【典型意义】

实践中，被执行人为逃避履行生效判决确定的义务，千方百计转移、隐匿财产，其中常见的手法是将名下车辆、房产等予以变卖、处置。本案中，被执行人曾木生在判决生效后，故意将其名下的车辆予以变卖，将经营的个体户予以注销，显然属于有能力履行义务而拒不执行，已涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。其在羁押期间与申请执行人达成和解协议，可作为酌定量刑情节。本案旨在告诫被执行人不要抱有侥幸心理，要主动、自觉履行法院判决，如果转移、隐匿财产，将可能受到刑事处罚。

案例5：王以军涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定案

----被执行人隐匿法院查封的财产，被两次司法拘留后仍抗拒执行，被以涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪移送追责。

执行法院：甘肃省山丹县法院

执行案由：交通肇事损害赔偿纠纷

申请执行人：赵钧

被执行人：王以军

【案情摘要】

2013年9月13日傍晚，被执行人王以军的雇佣人员任玉华驾驶王以军名下车牌号为甘GF2002的轻型自卸货车，行驶至甘肃省山丹县霍城镇王庄村路段时，与申请执行人赵钧之妻杜永花驾驶的三轮摩托车发生刮擦，致杜永花受伤，经抢救无效死亡。在处理事故中双方达成赔偿协议，由王以军支付申请人赵钧包括死亡赔偿金、丧葬费、被抚养人生活费等各项费用共计266000元，扣除已支付的20000元及达成协议当日支付的106000元外，剩余140000元于2013年12月31日前全部付清，如不按协议履行，需另赔偿总额20%的违约金53200元。同年10月8日，经双方申请，甘肃省山丹县法院依法确认上述赔偿协议的效力。

因王以军未按照协议确定的期限履行，申请执行人赵钧于2014年11月13日向山丹县人民法院申请强制执行。执行中，山丹县人民法院调查到被执行人王以军拥有车牌照分别为甘GF2002轻型自卸货车和甘GC6631小型普通客车各一辆，与其妻刘春桂在该县陈户乡范营村市场经营一化妆品店和一手机、家电门市部，完全具备履行能力。执行人员找到王以军通知其主动履行法院生效裁判，但王以军拒不履行。2014年12月8日，山丹县人民法院对王以军采取了司法拘留措施，同时查封了王以军名下的甘GF2002轻型自卸货车及甘GC6631小型普通客车。拘留期限届满后，王以军仍然拒绝履行。山丹县人民法院责令王以军交出查封的车辆，但王以军拒绝交出。2015年1月15日，山丹县人民法院再次对其采取了司法拘留措施。拘留期间，执行法院向其告知拒不执行法院裁决的法律后果，要求其主动交出车辆配合执行，但王以军仍拒不配合。山丹县人民法院认为，被执行人王以军完全具备履行能力，在多次告知法律后果后，仍拒不履行生效裁判，其行为涉嫌构成拒不执行法院判决、裁定罪，遂将有关犯罪线索移送公安机关。公安机关立即立案侦查，及时对王以军采取了刑事拘留措施。王以军摄于法律的威严，于2015年2月3日交清全部执行款193200元，案件顺利得到执结。对王以军的刑事追责程序仍在进行中。

【典型意义】

被执行人王以军在完全具备履行能力的情况下，拒不执行法院生效裁判，拒绝交出法院查封的财产，执行法院对其两次司法拘留仍对抗执行，属于拒不执行人民法院判决裁定的行为“情节严重”。本案通过严肃追究被执行人拒不执行人民法院判决裁定犯罪行为，不仅促使法院生效裁判得到顺利执行，维护了当事人合法权益，而且有力震慑了犯罪，具有一定的教育宣传作用。

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.