The "Civil Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China (Draft)" (hereinafter referred to as "the Draft") has attracted widespread social attention since it was submitted to the 35th Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress for initial deliberation on June 21, 2022. The Draft is based on the implementation procedures of the Civil Procedure Law, integrating the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and other laws, as well as relevant judicial interpretations and normative documents. It is the first time that China has made special legislation to ensure the enforcement of civil enforcement, and has proposed a large number of framework designs for the creation of the enforcement system, Giving legal basis to some practical and effective practices that lack existing legal basis in judicial practice will be beneficial to filling the gaps in China's compulsory execution procedural legislation. 

In view of the limited space, this article will sort out and interpret the key content of the Draft that involves significant breakthroughs in practical operation for sharing and exchange. 

1、 Restructuring the distribution rules of ordinary creditor's rights

Article 179 of the Draft stipulates that: "After priority has been given to paying off the execution expenses and co beneficial debts, the execution funds shall be distributed in the following order: (1) the execution claims such as wages, labor remuneration, and medical expenses necessary for maintaining the basic livelihood and medical treatment of the creditors; (2) the claims that enjoy the priority right to compensation for the subject matter of execution; and (3)Other civil claims. "The civil claims provided for in item 3 of the preceding paragraph shall be repaid in the order of priority in which the property is sealed up." 

At present, China's implementation of the legal norms on the distribution of ordinary creditor's rights is a binary allocation system. That is, depending on whether the person subjected to execution is a legal person, different rules for the distribution of ordinary creditors' rights are adopted. If the person subjected to execution is a legal person, the ordinary creditors' rights will be paid directly in the order of the seized property, while if the person subjected to execution is a citizen or other organization, the ordinary creditors' rights will be paid in principle in accordance with their proportion to the total amount of claims applied for distribution. 

Article 516 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law"): "If the parties do not agree to be transferred for bankruptcy or the people's court at the place where the person subjected to enforcement resides does not accept the bankruptcy case, the enforcement court shall, after deducting the enforcement costs and paying off the priority claims, pay off the ordinary claims in the order of property preservation and sealing up, attachment, and freezing of property during enforcement." (Distribution rules for the person subjected to execution as a legal person)

According to Article 506, Paragraph 1, of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, if the person subjected to execution is a citizen or other organization, and after the commencement of the execution procedure, any other creditor of the person subjected to execution who has obtained the basis for execution finds that the property of the person subjected to execution cannot pay off all the creditors' rights, he may apply to the people's court for participation in the distribution. Article 508 of this interpretation stipulates that in the process of participating in the distribution and execution, after deducting the execution expenses from the execution proceeds, and paying off the claims that should be paid first, ordinary claims shall, in principle, be paid in accordance with their proportion to the total amount of claims applied for distribution. (If the person subjected to execution is an illegal person, that is, the distribution rules of citizens or other organizations)

As can be seen from the above rules, for ordinary claims, the participation distribution system is applicable to cases where the person subjected to enforcement is a citizen or other organization. The basic rule of distribution is to receive compensation based on the proportion of claims to the total amount of claims applied for participation in the distribution; If the person subjected to execution is a legal person, in principle, ordinary creditor's rights are not applicable to participate in the distribution, but are paid in the order of the seized property. 

As can be seen from the above provisions of the Draft, ordinary claims will be paid in a unified manner according to the order of attachment of property, and different rules will no longer be applied based on whether the person subjected to enforcement is a legal person. 

It can be seen that the "Draft" completely changes the current rules for the distribution of ordinary claims, that is, from the "dual system" of distribution to the "unitary system". 

In response, "In order to enhance the coordination and complementarity between this Law and the Bankruptcy Law, and highlight the concept of enforcement efficiency, in the context of the ongoing revision of the Bankruptcy Law and the imminent establishment of a natural person bankruptcy system, the President of the Supreme People's Court, Zhou Qiang, stated in his statement on the Draft," distribution procedures are required to apply to all civil subjects (Article 175 of the draft). " "Ordinary civil claims shall be paid in the order of attachment (Article 179 of the draft)." 

That is to say, the restructuring of the distribution rules for ordinary creditors' rights in the enforcement process such as the Draft is mainly aimed at achieving the connection between efficient enforcement and fair bankruptcy liquidation. The implementation distribution solves the problem of the realization of the debt rights of the subjects who have obtained the enforcement basis or enjoy the priority rights and ordinary creditors, and more embodies the principle of efficiency in this process, "The distribution shall be carried out in accordance with the order in which the property is seized, and the bankruptcy law addresses the issue of fairness. Ordinary claims that have not been repaid can be repaid through bankruptcy proceedings or other means, and the enforcement proceedings will no longer be resolved.". 

2、 Increase relief channels for dissenting actions of the person subjected to execution

The first paragraph of Article 88 of the Draft stipulates: "After the enforcement basis takes effect, if a defense that extinguishes or hinders the request of the applicant for enforcement occurs, the person subjected to enforcement may, before the end of the enforcement proceedings, bring a lawsuit to the enforcement court with the applicant for enforcement as the defendant and request that the enforcement not be enforced." This is the first time that China has explicitly stipulated the objection lawsuit of the person subjected to execution at the legal level. 

In response, Zhou Qiang, President of the Supreme People's Court, mentioned in his statement on the Draft that this article is intended to fully protect the litigation rights of the person subjected to enforcement, improve the enforcement legal system, and refer to traditional theories and foreign legislation. 

According to the provisions of Article 7, paragraph 2, of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objections and Reconsideration Cases by People's Courts" (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions on Enforcement Objections"): "If the person subjected to enforcement raises an objection to the exclusion of enforcement based on substantive reasons after the enforcement basis becomes effective, such as the extinction of the creditor's rights or the loss of the effectiveness of compulsory enforcement, the people's court shall refer to the provisions of Article 225 of the Civil Procedure Law(Note: The people's court shall review the written objection within 15 days from the date it receives it. If the reason is established, it shall rule to cancel or correct it; if the reason is not established, it shall rule to reject it.)"Conduct a review." In addition, Article 12 of the "Provisions on Objections to Implementation" stipulates: "The people's court shall conduct written review of enforcement objections and reconsideration cases; if the case is complex and controversial, a hearing shall be conducted." 

According to the current regulations, there are only two remedies for the person subjected to execution to raise an objection during the compulsory execution stage: written review or hearing. Obviously, neither written review nor hearing can achieve the same effect as claiming rights through judicial proceedings. Giving the person subjected to enforcement the right to file an objection, preventing the person applying for enforcement from maliciously applying for enforcement, and infringing on the rights of the person subjected to enforcement, to a certain extent, reflects the basic concept of fair protection of the interests of all parties in the Draft. 

At the same time, in order to prevent the person subjected to execution from maliciously interrupting the execution process with the objection of the person subjected to execution, and to ensure the rights and efficiency of the person applying for execution, on the one hand, the Draft clearly defines the premise for the person subjected to execution to file an objection as "the occurrence of a defense that extinguishes or impedes the request of the person applying for execution"; On the other hand, according to the second paragraph of Article 90 of the Draft, "During the hearing of an objection by the person subjected to execution, execution is generally not suspended. If the person subjected to execution provides written evidence, the disciplinary measures against the disputed part shall be suspended, and the non disputed part shall continue to be executed. If the applicant provides a guarantee to request continued execution, the execution shall continue." It can be seen that during the trial of the dissenting action of the person subjected to execution, the principle is not to stop execution, with the exception of stopping the execution of the disputed part. 

3、 Establishing the legal basis for a lawyer's investigation order

Article 52, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Draft stipulates that: "If the person applying for enforcement is objectively unable to retrieve certain property information that cannot be queried by the people's court through the online information platform through an entrusted lawyer, he or she may entrust a lawyer to apply to the people's court for an investigation order. After examination, the people's court may grant an investigation order to the person if it deems it necessary. The investigation order shall be issued by the person in charge of the enforcement agency. If a lawyer conducts an investigation with an investigation order,", Relevant organizations and individuals should assist. "Those who refuse to assist shall bear corresponding responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of Article 75 of this Law." 

The lawyer investigation order system has no corresponding provisions in current laws, and is only stipulated in Article 2 of the "Opinions on Sanctioning and Evading Enforcement Acts According to Law" issued by the Supreme People's Court in 2011. Local courts can also explore and attempt to grant property investigation rights to proxy lawyers within the scope of legal provisions through investigation orders, commissioned investigation letters, and other methods based on local actual conditions. Currently, the basis for lawyers' investigation orders is scattered in judicial documents of local courts. Although in judicial practice, it is common for lawyers to apply to the court for issuance of investigation orders and conduct investigations with investigation orders, there are still cases where some units (such as some banks) refuse to assist on the grounds that lawyers' investigation orders have no legal basis. This provision of the Draft clarifies the legal basis for issuing a lawyer's investigation order and assisting in the investigation. For certain property information that cannot be queried by the people's court through the online information platform, the lawyer hereby stipulates that holding the order to investigate property clues will no longer be rejected by the assisting unit due to lack of legal basis, and will also alleviate the pressure on the court to implement fewer staff and more cases, Improve execution efficiency. 

4、 Improve the rules for correction when the implementation basis is unclear

Article 14 of the Draft stipulates that: "The enforcement basis should have a clear subject of rights and obligations and the content of the payment. If the enforcement basis does not specify the subject of rights and obligations or the content of the payment, the enforcement court may request the making authority or institution to clarify it by way of explanation, supplementary ruling, supplementary judgment, etc. If it cannot be clarified through the above methods, the parties may obtain a new enforcement basis through litigation, arbitration, etc." "Apply for implementation later." 

In enforcement practice, due to the unclear content of the legal documents on which various types of enforcement bases are based, the enforcement judge cannot directly enforce the legal documents, resulting in a protracted case. Article 15 of the current Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on the Coordinated Operation of Case Filing, Trial, and Execution by People's Courts stipulates that: "If the enforcement agency finds that the enforcement content of an effective legal document made by this court is unclear, it shall seek the opinions of the judicial department in writing. The judicial department shall provide a written reply or ruling to supplement and correct it within 15 days. If the enforcement content of an effective legal document is unclear, it is made by a higher court, and the enforcement agency of the enforcement court shall report it to the enforcement agency of the higher court, which shall be submitted by the higher court." The executive organ of the court solicits opinions from the judicial department. The judicial department shall, within 15 days, provide a written reply or order to make corrections. "If an effective legal document with unclear enforcement content is made by another court, the enforcement agency of the enforcement court may send a letter to the court enforcement agency that made the effective legal document, and the court enforcement agency shall seek opinions from the judicial department.". "The judicial department shall, within 15 days, provide a written reply or order to make corrections." 

The above judicial interpretation is a solution to the ambiguity of the enforcement content of the effective judgment made by the court, but there are no corresponding provisions on how to resolve the ambiguity of other enforcement bases (arbitration awards, notarized creditor's rights documents). 

On the basis of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation, Article 14 of the Draft clarifies that in cases where the content of other enforcement bases other than the effective judgment documents of the court is unclear, it can also be resolved through supplementation and correction. 

5、 Distinguish between monetary claims and

Non monetary claims, detailed enforcement rules for claims

The second and third parts of the Draft clearly distinguish between the enforcement of monetary claims and non monetary claims. The enforcement of claims under the current rule system is mainly stipulated in the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement of People's Courts" (Trial Implementation). The interpretation does not specifically distinguish between the enforcement of monetary and non monetary claims, while the Draft systematically distinguishes between the enforcement of monetary and non monetary claims, providing for the attachment order, performance order system, and respective legal effects of monetary and non monetary claims. 

At the same time, the Draft also details the rules in the implementation process of different claims, such as: 

1. Enforcement measures when it is difficult to collect the creditor's rights of the person subjected to enforcement. 

Article 154 of the Draft stipulates: "If it is difficult to collect the creditor's rights of the person subjected to enforcement due to the attachment of a time limit or conditions, the person subjected to enforcement's failure to perform the obligation to treat payment, or other reasons, the people's court may, upon the application of the person applying for enforcement, carry out a price change in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of Chapter IX of this Law." That is, if it is difficult to collect the creditor's rights, according to this provision, the creditor's rights can be applied for auction, sale, and other price measures for processing. 

At present, in enforcement practice, there are a large number of unenforceable claims of the person subjected to enforcement that need to be disposed of, but are placed on hold due to the lack of relevant regulations. According to this provision of the Draft, for claims that are difficult for the person subjected to enforcement to collect, the applicant for enforcement can apply for a price change process, which will greatly improve the efficiency of disposing of non performing claims. 

2. In the event that the secondary obligor raises an objection when enforcing the matured creditor's rights, the litigation rights of the applicant for enforcement and the secondary obligor shall be clarified. 

The first paragraph of Article 156 of the Draft stipulates: "If a third party raises an objection in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article, the people's court shall notify the applicant for enforcement. If the applicant for enforcement believes that the objection is unfounded, he may, within 15 days from the date of receiving the notification, bring a lawsuit with the enforcement court as a third party defendant." 

The second paragraph of Article 157 of the Draft stipulates: "If a third party believes that the creditor's rights of the person subjected to execution do not exist, have been extinguished, or there are other reasons impeding the person's claim, it may bring a lawsuit in accordance with the provisions of Article 88 of this Law." 

Article 47 of the current Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the People's Court (for Trial Implementation) only stipulates: "If a third party raises an objection within the period specified in the notice of performance, the people's court shall not enforce the objection against the third party and shall not review the objection raised." 

It can be seen that under current regulations, once a third party raises an objection to the execution of a debt that is due, the court will no longer enforce it and will not review the objection. There is no provision for the remedies of the applicant for enforcement. In enforcement practice, the applicant for enforcement may resort to subrogation proceedings against a third party to provide relief, but this not only hinders the execution of the debt that is due, This increases the risk of subsequent failure to execute, and also increases the execution cost of the applicant for execution. This draft clearly stipulates the right of the applicant for enforcement to file a claim for debt collection with the enforcement court, as well as the right of a third party to request a non enforcement action. It improves the review rules in the event that the secondary debtor raises an objection when enforcing a matured debt, which will facilitate the resolution of the matured debt issue at the enforcement stage, and on the one hand, it balances the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement and the third party, On the other hand, it can also reduce the execution cost of the applicant and accelerate the execution process of matured debts. 

3. Detailed implementation of disciplinary measures for the right to request delivery of goods. 

Article 188, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Draft stipulates that: "If the person subjected to execution refuses to deliver the subject matter determined to be delivered on the basis of the execution, the people's court may impose a daily fine on him, except for the case where the subject matter is of a type. The amount of the fine imposed on individuals is not more than 100000 yuan per day, and the amount of the fine imposed on organizations is not more than 1000000 yuan per day, but the cumulative number of days of the fine shall not exceed 180 days." 

Currently, there are no specific disciplinary measures for the person subjected to execution who fails to deliver the subject matter. However, this article of the Draft provides for the detailed creation of a daily penalty system for the person subjected to execution who refuses to deliver the subject matter on the basis of possession and execution. This provision details the special disciplinary measures for the person subjected to execution who is negligent in performing the right to request delivery of goods, which is conducive to the person subjected to execution delivering the subject matter as soon as possible, fulfilling the relevant obligations conferred by legal documents, maintaining legal authority, and promoting the enforcement of non monetary claims. 

4. Refine the execution of specific behaviors. 

Article 193 of the Draft not only emphasizes that measures such as fines and detention established by other laws can be used to urge the perpetrator to complete a specific act, but also adds enforcement measures for re detention, which can cumulatively and repeatedly impose disciplinary measures on the person subjected to execution, but the cumulative duration cannot exceed six months. In this way, disciplinary measures can be taken to encourage the perpetrator to actively perform specific acts, improve the efficiency of the enforcement of the right to claim conduct, and accelerate the process of the enforcement of non monetary claims. 

6、 Expand the scope of business application transfer and disposal rights

Article 110 of the Draft stipulates that: "The immovable property that has been sealed up can be sealed up again. The people's court that first sealed up can take measures to dispose of the sealed up immovable property such as price conversion and compulsory management in accordance with the law. The people's court that later sealed up should promptly inform the applicant for enforcement after sealing up and can apply for distribution to the people's court that first sealed up or other people's courts with disposal power. The people's court that first sealed up can apply for distribution three times after sealing up"If the reference price determination procedure for immovable property has not been initiated within six months, the people's court that has subsequently sealed up may consult with the people's court that has first sealed up to transfer the disposal right." 

According to Article 21 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Property Preservation Cases by People's Courts (Revised in 2020)"If the preservation court fails to dispose of the preserved property for more than one year after first taking the measures of sealing up, seizing, or freezing, the enforcement court that waits for the sealing up, seizing, or freezing of the preserved property may consult with the preservation court to transfer the preserved property to enforcement, except that the preserved property is the subject of dispute. However, if there are special provisions in judicial interpretation, those provisions shall apply." According to this provision, the waiting court has the right to request litigation to preserve the first court's transfer of disposition rights. However, if the first court is to enforce preservation, it is not clear whether the waiting court can request the transfer of disposition rights if the first court fails to initiate disposition as scheduled. 

Article 1 of the "Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Related to the First Closure of the Court and the Disposal of Sealed Property by the Priority Creditor's Rights Enforcement Court" (hereinafter referred to as the "Official Reply") stipulates that "during the execution process, the first person to seal up, detain, and freeze (hereinafter referred to as the" seal up ") shallThe court is responsible for disposing of the seized property. However, if a creditor's right that has entered the execution process of another court has a priority security interest or priority over the seized property (the creditor's right is hereinafter referred to as a priority creditor's right), and it has been more than 60 days since the date of first sealing up, and the court of first sealing up has not yet issued an auction announcement or entered the sale process for the seized property, "The priority creditor's rights enforcement court may request that the seized property be transferred for enforcement." According to this provision, there are no provisions for the transfer of business applications that are subject to common creditor's rights seizure, as opposed to waiting for seizure cases with priority to be paid. 

The provisions of the "Draft" not only cover litigation preservation or enforcement preservation in the first court waiting for the seizure court to have the right to negotiate for transfer for disposal; And provide for the transfer and disposal of ordinary waiting lockers. 

7、 Shorten the starting time of the second auction and lower the lower limit of the reserve price of the second auction

Article 126 of the Draft stipulates that: "If there is no applicant for enforcement to apply for acceptance or no one to purchase a real estate after the auction, the people's court shall issue a second auction announcement through the network platform within 15 days from the date of the auction. The announcement period shall not be less than 15 days. The reserve price for the second auction shall not be less than 60% of the reserve price for the first auction. The reserve price for the first auction shall be determined based on the reasonable price applied by the person subjected to enforcement"The reserve price for the second auction shall not be less than 42% of the evaluation result at the time of the first auction." 

Currently, according to the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Related to Online Judicial Auctions of People's Courts" and "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Auction and Sale of Property in Civil Execution of People's Courts", the starting time for the second auction is "within 30 days after the first auction"; Regarding prices, in addition to the parties reaching an agreement on the starting price, the people's court usually adopts the method of "first 70% discount, then 20% discount" to determine the reserve price for the first and second auctions. 

The differences between the Draft and the current regulations mainly reflect the following three points: 

First, shorten the starting time of the second beat. According to the current regulations, the starting time of the second auction is 30 days after the first auction, which is shortened to 15 days in the draft. 

Second, lower the lower limit of the reserve price for the second auction. In the current regulations, the lower limit of the reserve price for the second auction is 20% off the price for the first auction, which is reduced to 60% off in the Draft. 

Third, if the first auction price is determined based on the reasonable price applied for by the person subjected to execution, the lower limit of the second auction reserve price is 42% of the first auction price. The current regulations do not specify the rules for determining the first auction price based on the reasonable price applied for by the person subjected to enforcement. Article 115 of the Draft adds "If the person subjected to enforcement believes that the evaluation result seriously deviates from the market value of the property, and applies for determining the reserve price for the first auction at the reasonable price it believes, the people's court may grant permission." It can be seen that in this case, the first auction price is determined, The lower limit of the reserve price for the second auction is lower. 

It can be seen that according to the provisions of the "Draft", the implementation of property liquidation will be more quickly realized due to the adjustment of time limit and price. The above modifications reflect the implementation concept of improving the efficiency of property liquidation disposal. 

8、 Breaking through the existing rules of movable property seizure

Article 141 of the Draft stipulates: "If there are multiple seizures of the same movable property, the earlier one to take possession of it is the earlier one; if none of them has taken possession, the earlier one to register the seizure is the earlier one." 

The current "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Seizure, Seizure, and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by People's Courts" and the above "Official Reply", among others, provide for the same order of attachment of movable property as other properties. The first attachment is the first registration, and the first attachment court has the priority to dispose of the seized property. Article 141 of the Draft is a breakthrough in the existing rules for the seizure of movable property, clarifying the "who controls, who has priority, and who disposes of" rules for the enforcement and disposal of movable property. Only when no possession has been implemented can it be judged based on prior registration. This also puts forward new requirements for the enforcement of the movable property of the person subjected to enforcement during the process of handling enforcement cases, that is, while sealing up, it is more important to actively search for or control such movable property by oneself or by following up with the court. 

According to the provisions of the "Draft", when multiple courts have registered the seizure, if any court has first seized the property, the court that should have seized the property according to this provision is the first court to seal the property, According to Article 138 of the Draft, "The people's court may notify relevant organizations to assist in the search for or control of motor vehicles. If relevant organizations discover motor vehicles during the implementation of road traffic safety management and other activities, they shall promptly notify the people's court and assist the people's court in controlling them in an appropriate manner." This will greatly stimulate the enthusiasm of applicants for enforcement, especially those waiting for seizure, to take measures to seize the movable property as soon as possible, and improve the efficiency of the disposition of the seized but not possessed movable property. 

9、 Implementation method of adding joint property

In Chapter XIII, the draft provides a more complete regulation of the enforcement of joint property with six provisions. Articles 168 to 171 stipulate how to divide, seal up, and realize the value of the property jointly owned by the person subjected to execution and others by shares during execution; Article 172 and Article 173 stipulate how to dispose of the property jointly owned by the person subjected to execution and others during execution. 

At present, there are very few provisions on how to enforce shared property, which are scattered in the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing up, Seizure, and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by the People's Court, and related jurisprudence. However, in the judicial practice of execution, the person subjected to execution has a large amount of joint property such as husband and wife property, partnership investment property, and other common property that needs to be identified and disposed of. 

In Chapter XIII of the Draft, specific provisions are made on the implementation methods of joint property by share and joint property, clearly stipulating the implementation and disposal methods of joint property, balancing the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant and the joint owner. 

10、 Cancel the time limit for terminating this execution of the program

Article 80 of the Draft stipulates: "During execution, if the following circumstances are simultaneously met, the people's court may, with the consent of the person applying for execution or the review and verification of the people's court, rule to terminate the execution procedure: (1) The person subjected to execution has been issued an execution notice, and the person subjected to execution has been ordered to report property according to law;" Measures have been taken to restrict consumption of the person subjected to execution in accordance with the law, and the eligible person subjected to execution has been included in the list of dishonest persons subjected to execution; （3） "Necessary and reasonable property investigation measures have been exhausted, and it is not found that the person subjected to execution has property available for execution, the property found cannot be disposed of, or has been disposed of, but the creditor's rights have not yet been fully realized;"; （4） "Other enforcement actions required by law have been taken." 

The current laws and regulations do not specifically provide for the termination of this execution procedure, but only the relevant provisions and statements are contained in the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Strictly Regulating the Termination of this Execution Procedure (Trial)", According to this provision, Article 1: "When the people's court terminates this execution procedure, it shall simultaneously meet the following conditions: (1) it has issued an execution notice to the person subjected to execution, ordering the person subjected to execution to report property; (2) it has issued a consumption restriction order to the person subjected to execution, and has included the qualified person subjected to execution in the list of dishonest persons subjected to execution; and (3)Property investigation measures have been exhausted, and it is not found that the person subjected to execution has property available for execution or that the discovered property cannot be disposed of; （4） More than three months have passed since the execution of the case was filed; （5） If the whereabouts of the person subjected to execution are unknown, they have been searched according to law; "If the person subjected to execution or any other person obstructs execution and has taken compulsory measures such as fines or detention in accordance with the law, which constitutes a crime, the criminal responsibility investigation procedure has been initiated in accordance with the law." 

In contrast to the two provisions mentioned above, in addition to making adjustments to the relevant expressions, it is important to delete the time limit of "more than three months have elapsed since the date of filing of the enforcement case", which means that for enforcement cases that meet the conditions, it is not necessary to exceed three months to terminate this enforcement, but it can be terminated within a shorter period of time. 

The changes to the above draft will, on the one hand, improve the efficiency of handling enforcement cases to a certain extent; On the other hand, it is also necessary to refine the rules to avoid the abuse of the final procedure and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement. 

11、 Strengthen the obligation and content of voluntary property reporting of the person subjected to execution

Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Draft stipulates: "After receiving the property order for reporting, the person subjected to execution shall personally present the report on the designated date. If there are indeed difficulties in reporting on the same day, he may apply to the people's court for a change in the date." 

Article 47 of the Draft stipulates: "During the execution of monetary claims, the person subjected to execution shall report his current property situation and relevant information. If the person subjected to execution commits any of the following acts within five years prior to the date of receiving the order for reporting property, he shall also report: (1) Dispose of property rights and interests without compensation by waiving his creditor's rights, waiving creditor's rights security, or transferring property without compensation; (2)Extend the time limit for the performance of its matured creditor's rights; （3） May transfer property at a significantly unreasonable low price, or transfer property from another person at a significantly unreasonable high price; （4） Provide guarantees for the debts of others. "During the enforcement of non monetary claims, the person subjected to enforcement shall report the property situation and relevant information required for enforcement." 

In contrast to Article 248 of the current Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, which stipulates, "If the person subjected to execution fails to fulfill the obligations specified in the legal document according to the execution notice, he shall report the current property situation and the year before the date of receiving the execution notice." The Draft not only further requires the person subjected to execution to "personally report", but also requires an explanation of the special circumstances of the property within the five years prior to receiving the report property order; Moreover, according to Article 50, paragraph 1 (a) of the Draft, if the person subjected to execution fails to report his property on the spot, he may be included in the court's list of dishonesty, or detained or fined. 

The draft clause requires the person subjected to execution to "report in person", which not only effectively solves the problem of difficult delivery of execution, but also serves as a form of deterrence against the person subjected to execution; At the same time, supporting disciplinary measures can also exert a deterrent force on the person subjected to execution and improve execution efficiency. 

12、 Improve fines and detention penalties in specific execution

As already mentioned in Part V above, in case of refusal to deliver the subject matter that is determined to be delivered based on the basis of possession execution, a daily penalty system will be established in detail. In addition, in response to the situation where the person subjected to execution refuses to report property and continues to refuse to perform irreplaceable acts, the draft also adds new provisions (Articles 50 and 193) that can be detained multiple times, with a cumulative period of no more than six months, which has reached the minimum six-month term of fixed-term imprisonment. 

The addition of disciplinary measures such as daily fines and multiple detentions to the draft will create a significant deterrent to the person subjected to execution and encourage the person to actively fulfill their obligations. 

13、 Increase negative enforcement remedies

Article 32 of the Draft stipulates that: "If a party or interested party believes that a people's court should implement an enforcement act but fails to do so, they may, before the end of the enforcement proceedings, submit a written application to the enforcement court requesting the enforcement act to be implemented. After receiving the application for implementing the enforcement act, the people's court shall review and handle it within seven days. If the reason is established, the enforcement shall be started; if the reason is not established, the applicant shall be notified in writing.". "After receiving an application for execution, the people's court shall, if the situation is urgent, review and handle it within 48 hours;"; "If the reasons are established, the implementation shall begin immediately.". "If the applicant is not satisfied with the people's court's failure to examine and handle the matter within the time limit or the notification made in accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of this article, he may raise a written objection in accordance with the provisions of Article 84 of this Law." 

According to the currently effective regulations, the parties and interested parties mainly have three types of remedies for execution omissions: 

1. "If the application for enforcement has not been executed for more than six months from the date of receipt of the application by the people's court, the person applying for enforcement may apply to the people's court at the next higher level for enforcement (as provided in Article 233 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China);"; 

2. Directly submit an application for enforcement supervision to the enforcement court or a higher level court (Article 74 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement Work of People's Courts (for Trial Implementation)); 

3. Complaints to the Party Committee and government (Article 17 of the "Regulations on Complaints"). 

The above supervision mechanism has problems of large time span and low efficiency. Article 32 of the Draft provides a more effective and practical remedy for parties facing negative enforcement, and solves the problem of enforcement omission through the professional and efficient internal supervision of the court. 

14、 Provides for an efficient enforcement delivery system

Article 29 and Article 30 of the Draft provide for new enforcement service procedures. These two provisions have absorbed the contents of the Several Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Further Strengthening the Civil Service Work, and have been improved in combination with the characteristics of the implementation work. The main highlights are as follows: 

1. Confirmation of the delivery address will become easier. If the people's court still does not determine the address for service after informing the person to be served, the court may presume that the registered residence address of the natural person is the address for service, and the registration place of the legal person or unincorporated organization is the address for service. 

2. The confirmation of the delivery effect has also become clearer. "If the person on whom the legal document is to be served fails to actually receive it and serves it directly, the date on which the legal document is left at the address for service shall be deemed to be the date of service;"; "If the legal document is served by mail, the date on which it is returned or signed for by another person shall be deemed to be the date of service.". 

3. The method and deadline for delivering announcements have become more efficient. The Draft clearly stipulates that public announcement can be delivered through the Internet, reducing the litigation burden of announcement costs and time for the parties. The biggest difference from the current regulations is that the effective period of the first public announcement service is shortened from the original 30 days to 15 days, and the effective period of the second public announcement service is even shortened to three days. 

From the perspective of the efficiency of execution activities and the characteristics of public announcement service, the above-mentioned adjustments to public announcement service in the Draft have to some extent solved the difficulties of service in judicial practice. 

At present, the draft is still in the stage of soliciting opinions from all sectors of society, and the provisions of the draft have been announced to the public for comments and suggestions. Subsequent legislative bodies will further modify and improve the content of the draft based on the opinions and suggestions of all sectors of society, and submit it to the National People's Congress for deliberation.