The application of the crime of refusing to execute judgments and rulings under the new judicial interpretation
2024 12/17
Question raised
A. Company B had a dispute over payment for goods. After filing a lawsuit in March 2024, the court mediated and issued a mediation agreement. After the deadline for fulfilling the mediation agreement has expired, Company B has not yet repaid the loan. Company A applied for enforcement, but after being executed by the people's court, it was found that Company B had no property available for enforcement, which led to difficulties in the enforcement of the case. Recently, Company A unexpectedly learned that Company B had sold its property at a low price to its affiliated company Company C during the mediation period (Company C and Company B are the same shareholder). If the civil lawsuit revokes the transaction and then executes the house, the time and procedures will be very complicated. Can B company be sued for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling?
Lawyer analysis
After the implementation of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Refusal to Execute Judgments and Orders" (Judicial Interpretation [2024] No. 13, hereinafter referred to as the "New Judicial Interpretation") on December 1, 2024, Company A may sue Company B and may list Company C as a co defendant.
1、 The crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling also applies to refusing to execute a mediation agreement.
According to Article 313 of the Criminal Law, the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling refers to those who have the ability to execute a judgment or ruling of a people's court but refuse to execute it, and the circumstances are serious. In 2000, the "Reply of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court on Whether Refusal to Execute People's Court Mediation Agreements Constitutes the Crime of Refusing to Execute Judgments and Orders" clearly stated that "the 'judgments and orders' stipulated in Article 313 of the Criminal Law do not include people's court mediation agreements. For the act of refusing to execute people's court mediation agreements, it cannot be convicted and punished according to the provisions of Article 313 of the Criminal Law." It can be seen that before the implementation of the new judicial interpretation, it was generally believed in judicial practice that the crime of refusing to execute judgments and orders did not include refusing to execute mediation agreements.
The second article of the new judicial interpretation clarifies this, stating that the "judgment or ruling of the people's court" in the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling refers to a judgment or ruling made by the people's court in accordance with the law that has enforcement content and has legal effect, and the ruling made by the people's court to execute payment orders, effective mediation agreements, arbitration awards, notarized debt documents, etc. in accordance with the law belongs to the ruling stipulated in this article. Therefore, after the implementation of the new judicial interpretation, refusing to execute effective mediation agreements can also constitute the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings.
2、 The starting time for calculating the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling is after the defendant receives the notice of response from the people's court.
Before the implementation of the new judicial interpretation, there was no clear legal provision regarding the starting time for the crime of "refusing to execute judgments or rulings". This has led to different views in judicial practice: one view holds that the starting time should be from the date when the judgment or ruling becomes legally effective; Another viewpoint suggests that the date of filing the case should be counted from the date of court execution; Another viewpoint suggests that the date of receipt of the enforcement document issued by the court by the person subject to enforcement shall be used as the starting point. Therefore, some debtors take advantage of the time difference to transfer their assets during the litigation period, resulting in the case being terminated after execution due to the lack of assets available for execution.
Article 6 of the new judicial interpretation clarifies this, stipulating that if a person, in order to evade their obligation to execute, conceals or transfers property after the start of the litigation (generally referring to the defendant receiving a notice of response from the people's court) or before the judgment takes effect, and it is verified to be true after the judgment or ruling takes effect that they are required to execute but refuse to execute, it can be determined that they have the ability to execute but refuse to execute. If the circumstances are serious, they will be held criminally responsible for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.
3、 B and C companies can be listed as joint defendants.
Article 8 of the new judicial interpretation stipulates that if a third party knowingly refuses to execute a judgment or ruling of a people's court despite knowing that the person with the obligation to execute has the ability to do so, and colludes with them to assist in hiding or transferring property, resulting in the judgment or ruling being unable to be executed, they shall be punished as accomplices of the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Therefore, the third party subjectively satisfies that the person who knows the obligation to execute has the ability to execute but refuses to execute; Objectively satisfying their collusion, assisting in the implementation of concealment, transfer of property, and other refusal to execute actions. Once verified by the people's court, the third party to the case constitutes an accomplice who refuses to execute the judgment or ruling.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the implementation of the new judicial interpretation provides clearer and more specific guidance for the legal application of the crime of refusing to execute judgments and rulings, enhances the operability and enforceability of legal application, and will severely crack down on refusal to execute behavior, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved.
A. Company B had a dispute over payment for goods. After filing a lawsuit in March 2024, the court mediated and issued a mediation agreement. After the deadline for fulfilling the mediation agreement has expired, Company B has not yet repaid the loan. Company A applied for enforcement, but after being executed by the people's court, it was found that Company B had no property available for enforcement, which led to difficulties in the enforcement of the case. Recently, Company A unexpectedly learned that Company B had sold its property at a low price to its affiliated company Company C during the mediation period (Company C and Company B are the same shareholder). If the civil lawsuit revokes the transaction and then executes the house, the time and procedures will be very complicated. Can B company be sued for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling?
Lawyer analysis
After the implementation of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Refusal to Execute Judgments and Orders" (Judicial Interpretation [2024] No. 13, hereinafter referred to as the "New Judicial Interpretation") on December 1, 2024, Company A may sue Company B and may list Company C as a co defendant.
1、 The crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling also applies to refusing to execute a mediation agreement.
According to Article 313 of the Criminal Law, the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling refers to those who have the ability to execute a judgment or ruling of a people's court but refuse to execute it, and the circumstances are serious. In 2000, the "Reply of the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court on Whether Refusal to Execute People's Court Mediation Agreements Constitutes the Crime of Refusing to Execute Judgments and Orders" clearly stated that "the 'judgments and orders' stipulated in Article 313 of the Criminal Law do not include people's court mediation agreements. For the act of refusing to execute people's court mediation agreements, it cannot be convicted and punished according to the provisions of Article 313 of the Criminal Law." It can be seen that before the implementation of the new judicial interpretation, it was generally believed in judicial practice that the crime of refusing to execute judgments and orders did not include refusing to execute mediation agreements.
The second article of the new judicial interpretation clarifies this, stating that the "judgment or ruling of the people's court" in the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling refers to a judgment or ruling made by the people's court in accordance with the law that has enforcement content and has legal effect, and the ruling made by the people's court to execute payment orders, effective mediation agreements, arbitration awards, notarized debt documents, etc. in accordance with the law belongs to the ruling stipulated in this article. Therefore, after the implementation of the new judicial interpretation, refusing to execute effective mediation agreements can also constitute the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings.
2、 The starting time for calculating the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling is after the defendant receives the notice of response from the people's court.
Before the implementation of the new judicial interpretation, there was no clear legal provision regarding the starting time for the crime of "refusing to execute judgments or rulings". This has led to different views in judicial practice: one view holds that the starting time should be from the date when the judgment or ruling becomes legally effective; Another viewpoint suggests that the date of filing the case should be counted from the date of court execution; Another viewpoint suggests that the date of receipt of the enforcement document issued by the court by the person subject to enforcement shall be used as the starting point. Therefore, some debtors take advantage of the time difference to transfer their assets during the litigation period, resulting in the case being terminated after execution due to the lack of assets available for execution.
Article 6 of the new judicial interpretation clarifies this, stipulating that if a person, in order to evade their obligation to execute, conceals or transfers property after the start of the litigation (generally referring to the defendant receiving a notice of response from the people's court) or before the judgment takes effect, and it is verified to be true after the judgment or ruling takes effect that they are required to execute but refuse to execute, it can be determined that they have the ability to execute but refuse to execute. If the circumstances are serious, they will be held criminally responsible for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.
3、 B and C companies can be listed as joint defendants.
Article 8 of the new judicial interpretation stipulates that if a third party knowingly refuses to execute a judgment or ruling of a people's court despite knowing that the person with the obligation to execute has the ability to do so, and colludes with them to assist in hiding or transferring property, resulting in the judgment or ruling being unable to be executed, they shall be punished as accomplices of the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Therefore, the third party subjectively satisfies that the person who knows the obligation to execute has the ability to execute but refuses to execute; Objectively satisfying their collusion, assisting in the implementation of concealment, transfer of property, and other refusal to execute actions. Once verified by the people's court, the third party to the case constitutes an accomplice who refuses to execute the judgment or ruling.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the implementation of the new judicial interpretation provides clearer and more specific guidance for the legal application of the crime of refusing to execute judgments and rulings, enhances the operability and enforceability of legal application, and will severely crack down on refusal to execute behavior, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved.
