Source: http://www.shndlaw.com/post/1466
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:45:56+00:00

Document:
In Li A v. Cao A for tort liability dispute, the People's Court of Zheng'an County, Guizhou province entered the Civil Judgment No. 1313 , First, Civil Division, Zheng'an in August 2013, ordering defendant Cao A to compensate Li A for all the expenses amounting to more than 200,000 yuan incurred by the injury to the person caused by providing labor service. After the judgment came into effect, Cao A failed to discharge his obligations within the period as fixed in the judgment. In March 2014, Li A applied to People's Court of Zheng'an County for enforcement. In the course of enforcement, the person subject to enforcement, Cao A, reached a compromise on satisfaction in installments with Li A. Cao A made payments amounting to 100,000 yuan but failed to pay the remaining more than 100,000 yuan.
In the course of execution, the court ascertained that the Construction Project Office of Zheng'an County demolished a 433.50-square-meter building and a 101.64-square-meter ground floor retail unit of Cao A in July 2013 and gave him four apartments and three ground floor retail units in demolition compensation. On May 28, 2014, the court seized a placement apartment of Cao A. In order not to pay debt, Cao A and Jia A registered a divorce in August 2014, with a divorce agreement stipulating that all the apartments in demolition compensation belonged to Jia A. In December 2014, Cao A and Jia A executed a housing transfer agreement with Xiang A, transferring the apartment seized by the court to Xiang A at a price of 205,000 yuan. Cao A continued not to discharge his obligations as determined by the judgment and disappeared, rendering the judgment unsatisfied for a long time.
The court in Zheng'an County referred the lead that Cao A was suspected of the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling to the Public Security Bureau of Zheng'an County for case filing for investigation. Cao A surrendered himself to the Public Security Bureau of Zheng'an County on March 30, 2017 and was placed in criminal detention that same day. During the detention, the ex-wife of the person subject to enforcement, Jia A, voluntarily paid the debt owed and the interest accrued thereon until the deferred satisfaction at the court on April 5, 2017. At the public prosecution instituted by the procuratorial agency, the People's Court of Zheng'an County sentenced Cao A to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year for the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling on August 8, 2017.
The person subject to enforcement in this case was capable of payment, but he transferred all the property to his wife by divorcing his wife by agreement and sold the apartment seized by the court without permission, rendering the enforcement of the judgment impossible. As the circumstances were serious, he was guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. The court referred its criminal lead as legally required to the public security authority for criminal liability proceedings and conducted conviction and sentencing according to the law, so as to effectively punish the crime of refusal to satisfaction and defend the judicial authority. The ex-wife of the person subject to enforcement was caused to voluntarily help the person subject to enforcement pay all his debts, so as to effectively protect the lawful rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement and produce good legal and social effects.
Defendant Shi A was the legal representative of Changyuan Ecological Agriculture Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "Changyuan Cooperative") in Changjiang Li Autonomous County, Hainan province. In October 2012, in order to construct greenhouses for farming as needed at a construction site, Changyuan Cooperative and Zhao A executed a vegetable greenhouse cooperation contract. Later a dispute arose between the parties in the course of settlement of construction costs. Zhao A brought action in the court against Changyuan Cooperative, and the People's Court of Changjiang Li Autonomous County (hereinafter referred to as the "Changjiang Court") entered the Civil Judgment No. 268 , First, Civil Division, Changjiang on July 18, 2014, ordering Changyuan Cooperative to pay Zhao A construction costs in the amount of 1,003,500 yuan and liquidated damages for past due payment. At the appeal from Changyuan Cooperative, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Hainan province entered the Civil Judgment No. 23 , Final, Civil Division III, No. 2 Intermediate, Hainan on November 24, 2014, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment.
As, after the judgment took effect, Changyuan Cooperative failed to discharge its obligations within the period as fixed in the judgment, Zhao A applied to Changjiang Court for enforcement. As it was found, upon the completion of the construction of the greenhouses, Changyuan Cooperative applied to the Agricultural Bureau of Changjiang County for a subsidy for agricultural greenhouses, received a subsidy in the amount of 3,226,800 yuan from the financial authority of Changjiang County, and thus was capable of discharging. Changjiang Court docketed the case for enforcement and issued an enforcement notice and a property reporting order to Changyuan Cooperative, but Changyuan Cooperative still refused to discharge its obligations and declare its property. The enforcement court hence seized the operation rights in the 270-mu land located in Shuangtang Village, Haiwei Town, Changjiang County of Changyuan Cooperative and the vegetable greenhouses and related facilities thereon according to the law. Shi A decided without permission to dispose of said land and facilities that had been seized. Some greenhouses were leased to others for farming, and some greenhouses were used for own farming. Shi A refused to pay the rental and proceeds of farming acquired to the court. In response to the above-mentioned refusal by Changyuan Cooperative and Shi A, Changjiang Court took 15-day judicial detention measures against Shi A according to the law on January 20, 2016. At the expiry of the period of detention, the person subject to enforcement still refused to discharge the obligations.
The enforcement court hence referred the lead that Shi A was suspected of crime to the public security authority. Based on the investigations by public security authority, the procuratorate instituted a public prosecution. Changjiang Court entered a judgment according to the law, convicting defendant Shi A of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling and sentencing him to a fixed-term imprisonment of two years.
In this case, Changyuan Cooperative, as the person subject to enforcement, refused to declare its property and evaded satisfaction by various means, notwithstanding its capability of discharging, and its legal representative still failed to satisfy the judgment after being placed under judicial detention measures, causing serious damage to the applicant for enforcement. Changyuan Cooperative was in the category of "one is capable of satisfying a judgment or ruling but refuses to do so and falls under serious circumstances" and guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. This case involved unit crime. As defendant Shi A was the legal representative of the unit and the directly responsible person in charge, Shi A should be criminally liable for the unit committing the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or rulings. That the court convicted and sentenced Shi A to actual punishment according to the law conformed to the law, embodied the severe crackdown on the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling, and was of certain guiding significance for holding natural persons criminally liable according to the law in unit crime.
From June to October 2013, defendant Li A Bin provided a guarantee in respect of a fish feed sale contract concluded between his cousin Li A You and Luo A. As Li A You defaulted on due payment for the goods, Luo A brought action in the court against Li A Bin and Li A You in February 2015. The People's Court of Zhaodong City, Heilongjiang province took property preservation measures against the fishponds operated by Li A Bin and the fish therein worth 350,000 yuan after docketing the case and entered the Civil Judgment No. 154 , First, Commercial Division, Zhaodong on June 4, 2015, ordering Li A Bin to make payment in the amount of more than 330,000 yuan to Luo Yuan for the feed within ten days from the judgment taking effect.
As, after the judgment took effect, Li A Bin failed to discharge his obligations within the statutory period, Luo A applied to the court for enforcement. The People's Court of Zhaodong City docketed the case for enforcement on August 13, 2015 and issued an enforcement notice and a property reporting order to Li A Bin. Li A Bin failed to discharge his obligations within the specified period, refused to declare property, sold the live fish worth 350,000 yuan in the seized fishponds, and fled with the proceeds, rendering the enforcement of a court judgment or ruling impossible.
The People's Court of Zhaodong City referred the lead that Li A Bin was suspected of crime to the public security authority. The Public Security Bureau of Zhaodong City filed the case for investigation, arrested Li A Bin on September 5, 2016, and placed him in criminal detention according to the law. Upon the public security authority ceasing the investigation, the People's Procuratorate of Zhaodong City filed a public prosecution against defendant Li A Bin suspected of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling on 16 November 2016.
The court held upon trial that defendant Li A Bin sold the property seized in accordance with the law by the people's court without its permission, failed to hand over the proceeds to the people's court for preservation or pay the applicant for enforcement, and refused to report the information on his property; and he was capable but refused to satisfy an effective judgment or ruling of the people's court, fell under serious circumstances, and was guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. Defendant Li A Bin was sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and six months.
When the court issued an enforcement notice and property reporting order to defendant Li A Bin, who was the person subject to enforcement in the enforcement case, he refused to report the information on his property, refused to discharge the obligations as determined in the effective legal instrument, sold the property already seized according to the law by the court without its permission, and fled with the proceeds, rendering the enforcement of the effective judgment of the court impossible. He was in the category of "one is capable of satisfying a judgment or ruling but refuses to do so and falls under serious circumstances." On the prosecution instituted by the procuratorial agency, the court entered a judgment according to the law, which effectively punished the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling and played a positive role in warning against such crime of resisting satisfaction.
In Xiangyue Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Xiangyue") in Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong province v. Lin A for contract dispute, with the People's Court of Yuhu District, Xiangtan City as the court of first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Xiangtan City, as the court of appeal, entered a judgment which had taken effect, ordering He A and Lin A to pay Xiangyue 223,000 yuan for goods plus interest thereon. In the enforcement proceedings in the case, the Intermediate People's Court of Xiangtan City appointed the Court of Xiangtan County as enforcement court. The enforcement judge served an enforcement notice and property reporting order on He A and Lin A. However, the person subject to enforcement, Lin A, never discharged the obligations or report the information on the property to the court. On July 9, 2013 and July 24, 2013, on account of Lin A's refusal to discharge the obligations as determined in the effective judgment, the Court of Xiangtan County took judicial detention measures twice against the person subject to enforcement, Lin A, but he further failed to discharge the obligations. Xiangyue filed a report with the Public Security Bureau of Xiangtan County on October 13, 2015, requesting that the case be filed for suspicion of refusal to satisfy an effective judgment or ruling. Upon examination, the Public Security Bureau of Xiangtan County issued a notice of not filing the case. On November 10, 2015, Xiangyue instituted a private prosecution in the Court of Xiangtan County. The Court of Xiangtan County granted acceptance upon examination and decided in favor the arrest of Lin A, which the public security authority should made in accordance with the law. In April 2016, the Court of Xiangtan County accessed Lin A's bank accounts and found that, during the court enforcement period, more than 100 deposit and withdrawal transactions occurred through the bank accounts under the name of Lin A and deposits accumulatively totaled 131,719.84 yuan.
The Court of Xiangtan County held upon trial that defendant Lin A was capable of satisfying the effective court judgment but refused to do so, failed to declare property, and still did not satisfy the judgment after being placed in judicial detention twice, rendering him under serious circumstances and guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. On May 23, 2016, the Court of Xiangtan County entered the Criminal Judgment No. 00391  First, Criminal Division, 0321, Hunan, sentencing defendant Lin A to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year for the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. Lin A was unsatisfied and appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Xiangtan City. The Intermediate People's Court of Xiangtan City entered the Criminal Ruling No. 206 , Final, 03, Hunan, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment.
In the course of enforcement, deposits and withdrawals through bank accounts under the name of the person subject to enforcement occurred, with the deposits accumulatively amounting to more than 130,000 yuan. However, the person subject to enforcement failed to discharge any obligation as determined in the effective judgment and declare property as required. The person still did not discharge the obligations after being placed in detention twice. Hence the person fell under serious circumstances and was guilty of refusal to satisfy an effective judgment or ruling. The court effectively punished the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling and defended the dignity of the law, by accepting the private prosecution from the applicant according to the law and entered a judgment of guilt against the defendant.
In May 2013, the People's Court of Lin'an City entered the Civil Judgment No. 366 , First, Commercial Division, Lin'an, Hangzhou in Fu A v. Cao A and Zhou A for private lending, ordering defendants Zhou A and Cao A to pay 400,000 yuan in loan principal the and 48,000 yuan in interest to plaintiff Fu A within ten days from the judgment coming into effect. On July 24 that same year, the People's Court of Lin'an City served said civil judgment on defendants Zhou A and Cao A, who were husband and wife. As defendants Zhou A and Cao A refused to accept the service, the court staff conducted drop service as legally required. On August 8 that same year, the civil judgment came into effect. In default of defendants Zhou A and Cao A discharging their payment obligations, at the application of Fu A, the People's Court of Lin'an City docketed the case for enforcement according to the law on August 19 that same year and entered an enforcement ruling, seizing the land under the name of the person subject to enforcement, Zhou A, located at No. 67 Dawulong, Gaole Village, Gaohong Town, Lin'an City on November 5 that same year. On March 31, 2014, though knowing that the judgment of the People's Court of Lin'an City was effective and under the enforcement proceedings, the person subject to enforcement, Zhou A, transferred the land, factory buildings, and the little hill at No. 67 Dawulong, Gaole Village, Gaohong Town to Shi A at a price of 1.5 million yuan, used the proceeds acquired to repay personal debts and for consumption, and refused to satisfy the court judgment, rendering the enforcement of the effective judgment of the People's Court of Lin'an City impossible.
Based on the investigation by public security authority, the procuratorial agency filed a public prosecution, and the People's Court of Lin'an City tried the case in accordance with the law. The court held upon trial that defendant Zhou A was capable of satisfying the judgment of the people's court but refused to do so and fell under serious circumstances, and thus Zhou A was guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment. The crime alleged by the public prosecution authority was proved. As, after taken into custody, defendant Zhou A confessed to the crime faithfully, the defendant might be punished lightly as legally required. Defendant Zhou A was convicted of refusal to satisfy a judgment and sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year.
In this case, the person subject to enforcement refused to accept the civil judgment and discharge the obligations as determined in the effective judgment, and when the enforcement court took measures to seize the person's property, the person transferred the seized property without permission and used the proceeds of the transfer to repay other debts and for personal consumption, rendering the enforcement of the effective judgment impossible. The person was thus under serious circumstances with respect to refusal to satisfy an effective judgment. The public security authority, the procuratorial agency, and the people's court dealt an effective blow to the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling and defended judicial authority through lawful investigation, prosecution, and adjudication.
Defendant Xiao A borrowed 2.85 million yuan from Zeng A due to financial difficulties but defaulted on repayment. Zeng A brought action in the People's Court of Xihu District, Nanchang City, Jiangxi province and applied for property preservation on May 29, 2014. The Court of Xihu District ruled in favor of preservation in accordance with the law, seizing the bicycles and electric bicycles that Xiao A stored at the warehouse No. 14 at Hongduzhong Avenue in Nanchang City.
On July 10, 2014, under the auspices of the Court of Xihu District, Xiao A and Zeng A reached a mediation agreement, and the court prepared a Civil Mediation according to the law. After the Civil Mediation took effect, Xiao A failed to discharge the repayment obligation within the determined period. Zeng A hence applied to the People's Court of Xihu District for enforcement on July 31, 2014. That same day, the enforcement court issued an enforcement notice to Xiao A, but Xiao A did not cooperate in enforcement. In August 2014, Xiao A took away the bicycles amounting to more than 2,000 which had been seized by the court, without its permission, and sold and privately disposed of the bicycles to repay part of the debt owed to outside party, Hu A. Xiao A neither informed the People's Court of Xihu District of said illegal disposition of the seized property nor remit the proceeds of the sale of the bicycles to the account designated by the People's Court of Xihu District, but instead Xiao A fled with the original mobile phone turned off, rendering impossible the effective payment of the debt owed to the enforcement applicant, Zeng A.
On June 13, 2016, the public security authority arrested defendant Xiao A. Upon the public security authority ceasing investigation, the procuratorate filed a public prosecution, and, upon trial, the People's Court of Xihu District sentenced defendant Xiao A to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and six months for the crime of illegal disposition of seized property.
The illegal disposition of seized, impounded, or frozen property is a typical means for persons subject to enforcement to evade and resist enforcement. In the course of enforcement, the person subject to enforcement in this case sold the property that had been seized by the people's court without its permission and used the proceeds of the sale to pay other debts, resulting in the impossibility of the payment of the debt owed to the enforcement applicant. The person subject to enforcement fell under serious circumstances and was guilty of illegal disposition of seized property. Since the enforcement in the case is founded on a Civil Mediation, the refusal to comply with Civil Mediation on the part of the person subject to enforcement did not constitute a refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. That the court convicted the defendant of illegal disposition of the seized property and punished the defendant therefor complied with the law, represented the punishment of such resistance against enforcement, upheld judicial authority, and produced a good warning effect.
Xu A was the legal representative of Pinghu City Lvjie Renewable Grease Plant (hereinafter referred to as the "Lvjie"). The People's Court of Xiangshui County, Jiangsu province accepted Lu A v. Xu A and Lvjie for share purchase dispute on July 22, 2015 and entered the Civil Mediation No. 01557 , First, Civil Division, Xiangshui on August 18, 2015 that Xu A and Lvjie pay 800,000 yuan in investment to Lu A prior to September 10, 2015 and bear the case acceptance fee. As Xu A and Lvjie failed to discharge their repayment obligations as determined in the Civil Mediation, Lu A applied to the Court of Xiangshui County for enforcement on September 14, 2015. In the course of enforcement by the court, Xu A, on behalf of Lvjie, executed an agreement on the compensation for the demolition and relocation of Lvjie with Pinghu City Lindai Xinshi Town Development and Construction Co., Ltd., stipulating that Pinghu City Lindai Xinshi Town Development and Construction Co., Ltd. paid Lvjie a total of 2.247773 million yuan in compensation. The sum of money was remitted to Xu A's individual bank account by two installments, which Xu A respectively and promptly withdrew.
On May 10, 2016, the Court of Xiangshui County entered the Enforcement Ruling No. 01396 , Enforcement, Xiangshui, ordering Xu A and Lvjie to make restitution of Lu A's investment in the amount of 800,000 yuan. Xu A refused to sign to accept the service of the enforcement ruling. On May 11, 2016, the court required Xu A to declare his individual property, and Xu A made a false declaration of the demolition compensation he received. On September 21 and October 5, 2016, Xu A was respectively placed in detention for 15 days by the Court of Xiangshui County for the refusal to satisfy the ruling, but Xu A still refused to do so.
The Court of Xiangshui County referred the lead to Xu A's suspicion of refusal to satisfy a court judgment or ruling to the public security authority, and the public security authority filed the case for investigation according to the law and took compulsory measures against Xu A. On the public prosecution instituted by the public prosecution authority, the Court of Xiangshui County entered a judgment on May 9, 2017, convicting defendant Xu A of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling and sentencing the defendant to a fixed-term imprisonment of three years. At the appeal by Xu A, the Intermediate Court of Yancheng ruled that the appeal be dismissed and the original judgment be affirmed.
Xu A, the defendant in the case, received a large amount of compensation for demolition and relocation in the process of enforcement. However, Xu A withdrew the compensation instead of using it to discharge the obligations determined in the effective ruling. In addition, Xu A falsely declared individual property and still refused to satisfy the ruling after being placed in detention twice by the enforcement court. As Xu A was capable of satisfying the effective judgment or ruling but refused to do so and fell under serious circumstances, Xu A was guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. The public security authority, procuratorial agency, and adjudicative agency of Xiangshui County closely cooperated with each other, held Xu A criminally liable, and publicly pronounced the judgment, producing effective punishment and warning effect.
In Yu A, Yuan A Fang, Yuan A Xue, and Yuan A Fei v. Zang A Wen, Yang A, and Liu A for motor vehicle accident liability dispute, the People's Court of Fangshan District, Beijing (hereinafter referred as the "Fangshan Court") entered the Civil Judgment No. 11987 , First, Civil Division, Fangshan on December 10, 2013, ordering defendant Zang A Wen, subject to the limit of indemnity of the motor vehicle accident compulsory insurance, to compensate plaintiffs Yu A, Yuan A Fang, Yuan A Xue, and Yuan A Fei for the deceased, health care expenses, and funeral expenses, among others, amounting to 120,000 yuan, within 15 days following the judgment coming into effect, and defendants Yang A and Liu A were jointly and severally liable; and ordering defendant Zang A Wen, besides the limit of indemnity of the motor vehicle accident compulsory insurance, to compensate plaintiffs Yu A, Yuan A Fang, Yuan A Xue, and Yuan A Fei for the deceased, health care expenses, and mental injury, among others, amounting to 202,023 yuan, within 15 days following the judgment coming into effect. After the judgment came into effect, Yu A, Yuan A Fang, Yuan A Xue, and Yuan A Fei applied to the Fangshan Court for enforcement, following which Yang A already paid 120,000 yuan under enforcement. During the enforcement period, the enforcement personnel could not find or hear from Zang A Wen by making phone calls, visiting the place of household registration, and other means.
On August 21, 2015, Zang A Wen executed the Building Demolition and Relocation Compensation and Return Placement Agreement for Land Acquisition Program for the Project at Parcel 01, Block 04 of the Beijing High-End Manufacturing Base with Beijing Jingxi Sunshine Investment Co., Ltd. On October 14, 2015, Zang A Wen received 538,600 yuan in demolition and relocation compensation through a Beijing bank account. The next day, Zang A Wen remitted 400,000 yuan out of said sum of money to a Beijing bank account of Zang A Wen's younger sister and withdrew all the remaining 138,600 yuan in cash.
In June 2017, witnessed by a number of lawyers, Yuan A Fei et al. filed a complaint in the Fangshan Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Beijing Municipality for Zang A Wen's suspicion of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. The public security authority granted no acceptance without issuing a notice of non-acceptance. On June 28, 2017, Yuan A Fei et al. filed a private prosecution in the Fangshan Court against Zang A Wen committing the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment and submitted a Layers' Witness to prove that the private prosecutors had reported the case to the public security authority but the case was not accepted. After verifying Layers' Witness, the court confirmed that the public security organ did not file the case and docketed the case according to the law. During the trial by the court, the relations of defendant Zang A Wen paid 205,088 yuan in the sum of money subject to enforcement on behalf of the defendant and at the request of the defendant, which the defendant recognized.
The Fangshan Court held upon trial that, after receiving the demolition and relocation compensation sufficient to satisfy the effective judgment, defendant Zang A Wen transferred the property and evaded enforcement, resulting in the impossibility of enforcement of the judgment for three years, seriously infringing the lawful rights and interests of the private prosecutors and the judicial authority of the people's court, and Zang A Wen fell under serious circumstances and was guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment. Taking into account that Zang A Wen faithfully confessed to the facts of crime after appearing, actively paid the sum of money under enforcement before the pronunciation of the judgment, and repented of the crime, Zang A Wen might be punished in a lenient manner. The court sentenced Zang A Wen to a fixed-term imprisonment of eight months with a suspension of one year for the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling.
After coming to know that the case was under enforcement proceedings, defendant Zang A Wen disappeared, transferred property, and refused to discharge the obligations determined in the judgment, resulting in the impossibility of enforcement of effective judgment, and Zang A Wen fell under serious circumstances and was guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. When the enforcement applicants filed a complaint with the public security authority, the public security authority did not issue a notice of non-acceptance. However, the people's court confirmed the fact that the public security authority did not file the case based on the Lawyers' Witness and other evidence, accepted the enforcement applicants' private prosecution according to the law, conducted a timely trial, and entered a judgment as legally required, so as to procure the person subject to enforcement to discharge the obligations and effectively punish the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling.
On October 9, 2013, Chen A drove a small ordinary passenger car with license plate number as BU8351 ran down and injured pedestrians Ke A and Chen A Chong in a road at Longshan Village, Xitianwei Town, Licheng District, Putian City and caused a dispute. The People's Court of Licheng District, Putian City (hereinafter referred to as the "Licheng Court") entered the Civil Judgment No. 2172 , First, Civil Division, Licheng and the Civil Judgment No. 2563 , First, Civil Division, Licheng on October 14, 2014, respectively ordering defendant Chen A to compensate Ke A for economic losses amounting to 119,070.95 yuan and compensate Chen A Chong for economic losses amounting to 705,514.92 yuan. The judgments both took effect on November 4, 2014.
Following that, Chen A failed to voluntarily discharge the compensatory obligations. Chen A Chong and Ke A thus respectively applied to Licheng Court for enforcement on December 22, 2014 and December 24, 2014, upon which Licheng Court docketed the cases for enforcement. Thereupon, Licheng Court issued an enforcement notice and property reporting order to the person subject to enforcement and urged him to discharge the obligations determined in the legal documents. However, Chen A still failed to voluntarily discharge the compensatory obligations. In the course of enforcement, Licheng Court did not find out property susceptible to enforcement under the name of the person subject to enforcement. According to the further findings of the court, the person subject to enforcement, Chen A, secretly entered into a property sale agreement with Xu A, the mother of Chen A, in order to conceal the property under the name of Chen A, stipulating that the placement property No. 108, Building A3 and firewood room No. 56 in the basement A2 owned by the person subject to enforcement, Chen A, located in Xiaxu District, Hanjiang District, Putian City be transferred to Xu A at a low price of 100,000 yuan, without actual payment for the property. On January 4, 2015, person subject to enforcement Chen A and Xu A made the registration of the transfer of ownership of property, rendering the judgment unenforceable. By the transfer of the property, the person subject to enforcement Chen A and outside party Xu A were suspected of refusal to satisfy a court judgment or ruling. Licheng Court referred the lead to the public security authority for case filing for investigation. Subsequently, the public security authority filed the case for investigation and took compulsory measures against Chen A and Xu A. During this period, the person subject to enforcement Chen A voluntarily discharged the compensatory obligations. Applicants Ke A and Chen A Chong submitted a written application to Licheng Court for enforcement termination on November 30, 2016. On April 26, 2017, on the allegations by the public prosecution authority, Licheng Court entered the Criminal Judgment No. 179 , First, Criminal Division, 0304, Fujian, sentencing defendant Chen A to a fixed-term imprisonment of nine months with a suspension of one year and defendant Xu A to detention for six months with a suspension of eight months, respectively for the crime of refusal to satisfy a court judgment or ruling.
Chen A, the person subject to enforcement in the case, was capable of satisfaction but refused to satisfy the effective court judgment. Chen A also colluded in bad faith with the outside party and transferred the property under the name of Chen A to the relation by means of false transaction to evade the discharging of the obligations, rendering the court judgment unenforceable. The conduct of the person subject to enforcement constituted the crime of refusal to satisfy a court judgment or ruling, and the outside party was an accomplice in the crime of refusal to satisfy a court judgment or ruling. By holding the person subject to enforcement and the outside party criminally liable for refusal to satisfy a court judgment or ruling, the court procured the person subject to enforcement to discharge the obligations, punished the collusion in bad faith for refusal to satisfy the effective judgment, and played a very good educational and warning role.
In Chongqing Xiangyu Municipal Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Xiangyu") v. Chongqing Rongtai Plastic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Rongtai") for construction project work contract dispute, the People's Court of Hechuan District, Chongqing, served as the court of first instance, and on the appeal by Rongtai, the No.1 Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing, as the court of appeal, ordered Rongtai to pay Xiangyu the construction price in the amount of 142,4801.2 yuan and interest within five days from the judgment taking effect. On November 10, 2015, due to the failure of Rongtai Company to discharge its obligations on schedule, Xiangyu applied to Hechuan District Court for enforcement. After the enforcement case was docketed, Hechuan District Court served an enforcement notice, a property reporting order, and other enforcement instruments on the person subject to enforcement in accordance with the law, summoned, Liu A She, the legal representative of the person subject to enforcement, to the court to inform him of the relevant information on the application of Xiangyu for enforcement and the obligations of Rongtai to faithfully declare property, among others, and took measures to seize the account of the person subject to enforcement. However, Rongtai and its legal representative, Liu A She, still failed to discharge their obligations. On December 10, 2015, Liu A She reached an agreement with an outside party, Linyu Company, assigned an employee, Feng A, to sign a factory building lease with Linyu Company, and leased a factory building of the person subject to enforcement to Linyu Company for three years at a rental of 364,607 yuan. Afterwards, Liu A She instructed Linyu Company to remit the rental to the account of Liu A Bin, the son of Liu A She, though knowing that the account of Rongtai and the individual accounts of Liu A She were both frozen by the court, and Liu A She withdrew the rental for other use, instead of discharging the payment obligation, rendering the effective court judgment unenforceable.
Hechuan District Court referred the lead that Rongtai as the person subject to enforcement and Liu A She were suspected of the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling to the Public Security Bureau of Hechuan District for case filing for investigation. On the 21st day that same month, Liu A She surrendered himself to the Public Security Bureau of Hechuan District and was placed in criminal detention by the Public Security Bureau of Hechuan District that same day. During the trial of the case, Rongtai and Liu A She voluntarily discharged part of their obligations. On April 17, 2017, Hechuan District Court entered a judgment, determining that defendants Rongtai and Liu A She, the directly responsible person in charge of the entity, refused to satisfy the judgment which they were capable of satisfying, fell under serious circumstances, and were both guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. Taking into account the surrender of Liu A She and Rongtai's voluntary discharging of part of its obligations, it was decided to punish Rongtai and Liu A She lightly: sentencing defendant Rongtai to a fine of 100,000 yuan and sentencing Liu A She to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year with a suspension of one year and six months in addition to a fine of 50,000 yuan, each for the crime of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling.
In the course of the enforcement by the court, though knowing that the account of Rongtai was frozen by the court, Rongtai, as the person subject to enforcement, and Liu A She, as the person in charge of the company, instructed another company to remit funds that should have been remitted to the Rongtai's account to another person's account, used it for other purposes, and concealed company property, so as to evade enforcement by the court, rendering the effective court judgment unenforceable, and Rongtai and Liu A She thus fell under serious circumstances and were guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. This case is a model case involving an entity guilty of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling. It plays a role in warning entities as persons subject to enforcement that the court convicted the entity and the directly responsible person in charge thereof of refusal to satisfy a judgment or ruling and sentenced them respectively to criminal punishment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.