Beijing Yingtong Law Firm has focused on the protection of the rights and interests of private enterprises for many years. It has represented many corporate rights protection cases in the legal practice of rights protection in natural resources, mining, land, waters, territorial space, corporate equity, criminal defense, factory demolition, environmental protection shutdown, prohibition and vacation, etc., including large-scale real estate...
Top Ten Typical Cases of Implementation and Typical Cases of Service Guarantee and Legalized Business Environment in Sichuan Province in 2025
Home page >> Ying Ting Information >> Legal information
Article author：Yingting Lawyers Group | Update time：2026-06-04 | Reading times：144
Among the top ten typical enforcement cases in Sichuan Province in 2025 and typical cases of service guarantee and legalized business environment, lawyer Ying Ting summarized the cases. This batch of cases focuses on three core themes: overcoming backlogged and difficult cases, cracking down on evasion of enforcement, and good faith and civilized enforcement.
At the critical level, the Sichuan High Court integrated judicial resources through centralized enforcement, upgraded enforcement, cross-execution and other mechanisms, and successfully resolved a series of hydropower company cases spanning 11 years and a backlog of investment company cases that lasted 9 years, demonstrating the judicial determination to "enforce the case no matter how long it takes". "Execute 110“The cross-domain collaboration mechanism allows the person being executed to travel thousands of miles and have nowhere to hide.
At the crackdown level, for evasive behaviors such as transfer of property through anonymous shareholding, exclusion from execution of false lawsuits, and violation of consumption restriction orders, the court investigated criminal liability in accordance with the law - Cheng was sentenced to three years and six months in prison, and Zhou and Leng were also sentenced, delineating the legal red line for debt evasion.
At the level of good-faith enforcement, the court promotes "living seizure" instead of frozen accounts to ensure normal production and operation of enterprises; uses the "enforcement-break-connection" mechanism to revitalize distressed enterprises; proactively repairs the credit of enterprises and issues judicial suggestions to promote platform correction; it also draws lessons from the concept of bankruptcy and reorganization for unfinished properties to achieve a win-win situation for the rights and interests of home buyers and creditors.
A series of cases vividly explain:Enforcement work is not only the "last mile" to realize the rights and interests of winning the lawsuit, but also an important starting point for optimizing the legal business environment.
On the morning of January 26, 2026, the Sichuan Provincial Party Committee's Law-based Governance Provincial Office and the Sichuan High Court jointly held a press conference on "Sichuan Courts' 2025 Implementation Work and Services to Ensure a Legally-Based Business Environment" to inform the public about the Sichuan Courts' implementation work in 2025, and released the top ten typical cases of enforcement in the province in 2025 and typical cases of service guarantees for a legalized business environment.
A hydropower company in Kowloon is mainly engaged in hydropower production and operation. Since August 2014, poor production and operation have led to continuous debt disputes. The company, as the party subject to enforcement, has 123 enforcement cases involving private lending, construction project contract disputes, etc., involving 118 creditors and 3 companies. The cases are distributed in courts of 4 cities (states) and 7 counties (cities, districts) in Sichuan Province, and the total subject matter of the application for enforcement is more than 70 million yuan.
In August 2024, based on the fact that this series of execution cases involved many applicants for execution and the execution courts were widely distributed, in order to promote the smooth execution of this series of cases, the Sichuan High Court decided to uniformly designate cases in which a hydropower company in Kowloon was the person subject to execution that were accepted by other cities and states in the province to the Intermediate People's Court of Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Garze Intermediate Court) where the company's property is located for centralized execution.Ganzi Intermediate CourtDuring the execution process, it was found that the person subject to execution had no other property available for execution except for machinery and equipment and income from electricity sales. Simply auctioning the machinery and equipment would inevitably lead to the person being executed being unable to produce and operate normally, which would then affect the power supply for production and life, and would also be unfavorable to the realization of the creditor's rights of the person applying for execution. After careful study and judgment, the Ganzi Intermediate People's Court adjusted the execution strategies and methods, and determined the way of handling this case through execution and reconciliation. After repeated communication and coordination, the largest creditor, a technology company in Sichuan, was finally able to make additional investment.SubrogationFor part of the debt, the company obtained all the equity of a hydropower company in Kowloon. Other creditors agreed to be repaid in proportion and voluntarily gave up some of their claims, which ultimately pushed all parties to reach an execution settlement agreement.
On August 13, 2025, a Sichuan technology company remitted 10.97 million yuan to the account of the Ganzi Intermediate People's Court as agreed in the agreement, and the hospital completed the payment of execution funds in a timely manner. So far, all cases involving a water and electricity company in Kowloon as the person subject to execution have been successfully executed, and a series of difficult execution cases with large bids that lasted for 11 years have been successfully concluded.
For the same person subject to execution involving multiple execution cases distributed in different regions and different courts, the Sichuan High Court designated the Ganzi Intermediate Court to centralize execution, effectively integrating judicial resources and effectively solving problems such as poor information communication, high coordination costs, and numerous execution disputes caused by decentralized execution. Faced with the enforcement dilemma of corporate assets unable to cover all debts, the Ganzi Intermediate People's Court organized multiple consultations with multiple parties, prompting the largest creditor to adopt flexible enforcement methods such as "financing for equity" and subrogation to inject new vitality into endangered enterprises. Maximize the realization of paper rights and interests being cashed into real money, resolving the debt burden that has troubled the company for many years, creating favorable conditions for the company to resume normal production and operations, providing a reference for handling similar cases, achieving a win-win situation for multiple parties, and maintaining social harmony and stability.
Chengdu Intermediate People's CourtAfter the promotion, a number of measures were quickly taken to advance the case. Exhausted property investigation measures, conducted a comprehensive verification of property clues in the name of the person subject to execution, and through deducting insurance and executing common property in the name of others, an additional execution of more than 70,000 yuan was completed. A penetrating investigation into the paid-in registered capital of an investment company in Sichuan. After accessing the capital verification report, industrial and commercial files and bank statements, it was found that the shareholder's capital contribution was transferred in full to the account of an outsider on the day it was transferred into the capital verification account, resulting in a serious shortage of the company's responsible property, and multiple shareholders were suspected of evading capital contributions. The Chengdu Intermediate People's Court promptly explained the relevant legal provisions to Yan Moumou and guided him to pursue shareholder liability through litigation to realize his creditor's rights.
In May 2024, Yan Moumou reported toQingyang CourtLitigation of liability disputes between shareholders for harming the interests of creditors of the company. During the trial, the Qingyang Court took property preservation measures in accordance with the application and froze the bank deposits, houses and parking spaces of multiple company shareholders in accordance with the law. In August 2024, the Qingyang Court ruled that shareholders of an investment company in Sichuan, Lin Moumou, Li Moumou, and Xie Moumou, were liable for supplementary compensation within the range of 18.5 million yuan, 750,000 yuan, and 750,000 yuan respectively for the part of the company's unpaid debts that could not be paid off. After the judgment came into effect and entered into execution, the Qingyang Court immediately initiated property disposal measures and simultaneously explained the risks of criminal refusal to enforce. Shareholders Li Moumou and Xie Moumou were forced to perform their obligations proactively due to the threat of execution, and the rights of the person applying for execution to win the lawsuit were fully realized. In March 2025, the execution case was concluded with completion of execution, and the 9-year backlog of cases was concluded.
In June 2016, the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Chengdu Intermediate Court) issued a judgment, ordering a real estate company in Chengdu to pay Liu a loan principal of 40 million yuan and an interest of 486,000 yuan. Cheng Moumou (the company's legal representative) and three other people were jointly and severally liable for the company's payment obligations. Later, Liu transferred the creditor's rights to Qiu. During the execution of the case, as of December 2024, the execution court had executed a total of 1.87 million yuan from other persons subject to execution. In August 2023, a real estate company in Chengdu entered bankruptcy liquidation procedures, and the execution court ruled to terminate the execution of a real estate company in Chengdu. In March 2024, according to the bankruptcy property distribution plan of a real estate company in Chengdu, Qiu, as an ordinary creditor, could receive 2.52 million yuan in compensation in this round of distribution.
After the case was executed, Cheng Moumou did not truthfully declare that he had held 19.5% of the shares of other companies on behalf of others since June 2014, and concealed the sale of the shares he held on behalf of others in April 2021, of which 7 million yuan was used to repay other people's debts, and more than 25 million yuan was transferred to the names of others for the purchase of financial products. Cheng Moumou failed to declare his property and failed to perform his debts despite being able to do so. He is suspected of committing the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Later, a public prosecution was launched by the People's Procuratorate of Jinniu District, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province. The court held that the existing effective judgment determined that Qiu's debt had not been paid off, and that Cheng had the ability to execute the effective judgment of the People's Court but refused to do so. The amount of debt he should perform was huge, and the circumstances were particularly serious. His behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Therefore, on March 7, 2025, the defendant Cheng was sentenced to three years and six months in prison and fined 100,000 yuan for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Cheng Moumou later appealed against the judgment, and the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court ruled on September 30, 2025 to uphold the original judgment.
Combating the crime of refusing to enforce the law is an important means to enhance the coerciveness of the people's courts' enforcement work. It is also an important measure to protect the legitimate rights and interests of successful parties and maintain judicial authority. In this case, after Cheng Moumou determined the payment obligation in the effective legal document, he used others to hold the shares on behalf of others and then sold the shares held on behalf of others, and transferred a huge equity transfer amount of tens of millions of yuan to others' accounts to avoid execution. This constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. The amount of debt he should perform was huge, and the property concealed and transferred in order to avoid execution amounted to tens of millions of yuan, causing huge property losses to the person applying for execution, which is a particularly serious case. This case has a very important educational and deterrent effect on persons subject to execution who evade execution by holding the property on behalf of others or having others collect payment on their behalf after selling the property. It is conducive to creating a social atmosphere that respects the judgment and consciously performs the obligations specified in the effective judgment document, and promotes the construction of a social integrity system.
In 2019, a heavy equipment company in Deyang (the plaintiff) and a special steel company in Chifeng (the defendant) signed an "Equipment Design, Manufacturing and Supply Contract", stipulating that the plaintiff would design, manufacture and deliver equipment for the defendant, with a total price of 350 million yuan. After the plaintiff completed delivery as agreed, the defendant failed to pay the full amount. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Deyang City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as Deyang Intermediate Court) and applied for property preservation, requiring the defendant to pay a total of more than 170 million yuan including payment for goods. On January 20, 2025, Deyang Intermediate Court opened the case for trial.
The enforcement department went to the defendant's location to preserve and seize the large-scale machinery and equipment. Considering that the preserved property was the core asset of the defendant's production and operation, in order to avoid affecting the normal operation of the enterprise and reducing the debt repayment ability after the seizure, the enforcement judge flexibly adopted the "live seizure" method to implement the preservation, and allowed the defendant to continue to use it on the premise of ordering the defendant to promise not to destroy, transfer, lease, mortgage, or sell off the equipment. Mediation work is carried out simultaneously on site. In the end, the executive judge interpreted the law clearly and facilitated the two parties to reach a mediation agreement on the spot. The executive judge sent the agreement back to Deyang Intermediate Court. After review, the trial judge issued a mediation letter and electronically served it to both parties at the scene, and the dispute was successfully resolved.
The preservation system is a key measure to achieve "guarantee to promote enforcement" and "guarantee to promote adjustment". Deyang Intermediate People's Court has established an integrated collaboration mechanism of "filing, review, and execution" and opened a "green channel" for enterprise-related cases, with the three departments of filing, review, and execution advancing collaboratively. In the implementation, the company adheres to the concepts of equal protection, goodwill and civilization, and adopts "live seizure" measures for the core equipment of a special steel company in Chifeng. On the premise of ensuring that the property is preserved and controllable, the company is allowed to continue to use the equipment, achieving the organic unity of "protecting rights and interests" and "stabilizing production." At the preservation site, the enforcement judge actively organized negotiations between the two parties, and ultimately facilitated the two parties to reach a mediation agreement. After remote review, the trial judge issued a mediation letter and delivered it electronically. The huge 170 million dispute case was resolved on the spot, achieving a win-win situation for all parties, practicing the judicial concept of "equal protection", and creating a good legal business environment for the high-quality development of the private economy.
In April 2025, an electronics company in Sichuan discovered that Ma was traveling through social platforms such as WeChat Moments and Douyin, and immediately reported it to the Fucheng Court. The Fucheng Court compulsorily summoned Ma, the person subject to execution, and conducted a personal search in accordance with the law. It was found that although Ma knew that he had not fulfilled his effective refereeing obligations and was restricted from consumption, he still used various means to circumvent the restrictive measures and stayed in luxury suites of high-end hotels many times. During the consumption restriction period, the amount of consumption expenditure reached more than 700,000 yuan. Due to serious violations of the consumption restriction order, in June 2025, the Fucheng Court decided to subject the person being executed to judicial detention for 15 days.
The purpose of imposing consumption restriction measures on the person subject to execution is to restrain and limit the high consumption behavior of the person subject to execution that is not necessary for life or business, prevent the improper reduction of the property of the person subject to execution, improve the debt repayment ability of the person subject to execution, and realize the rights and interests of the person applying for execution to win the lawsuit to the maximum extent. By restricting specific categories of consumption behavior, the person subject to execution is forced to proactively perform his obligations. In this case, the person subject to execution violated the consumption restriction requirements and made high consumption many times while knowing that he was restricted from consumption. The circumstances were serious and should be sanctioned according to law. Strictly cracking down on the violation of consumption restriction orders by persons subject to execution is of great importance and significance in strengthening enforcement deterrence, fulfilling the parties' rights to win the lawsuit, and promoting the construction of a social credit mechanism.
In September 2024, Peng borrowed 2 million yuan from Du, and an agricultural studio in Liangshan Prefecture provided joint guarantee liability for the loan. In September 2025, because Peng failed to perform his repayment obligations as agreed, Du filed a lawsuit with the Tongchuan District People's Court of Dazhou City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as Tongchuan Court), naming an agricultural studio in Liangshan Prefecture and Peng as the defendants. On September 25 of the same year, he applied to the court for property preservation, requesting that the goods stored by an agricultural studio in Liangshan Prefecture at a cold chain logistics company in Sichuan be seized, sold and the price preserved. An investigation by the Tongchuan Court found that the preserved property consisted of 1,616 pieces of beef (a total of 33,200kg), which were stored in the cold storage of a cold chain logistics company in Sichuan and belonged to the frozen fresh food category. The outer packaging was marked with a shelf life of February 2026. At the time of preservation, there were only three months left before the shelf life expired. It is a typical item that is perishable and not suitable for long-term storage. If this batch of beef is disposed of according to conventional preservation procedures, the property will completely lose value due to the expiration of the shelf life. If the constant temperature storage condition of minus 18°C is maintained, high storage costs will be incurred, further increasing the losses of the parties involved.
In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of both parties to the maximum extent and avoid depreciation of property value, the Tongchuan Court established a special working group to formulate targeted disposal plans. On the one hand, it optimized the pricing process, abandoned the traditional evaluation process with a long cycle, and used the market inquiry method to determine the auction reserve price. Three representative large-scale fresh beef wholesale companies and catering chains in Dazhou were randomly selected as inquiries. After review by the collegial panel, the auction reserve price was finally determined to be 456,700 yuan; on the other hand, the promotion of the bid was strengthened, and the auxiliary auction agency was entrusted to produce detailed bid information through the Taobao judicial auction platform, and accurately promoted it to potential bidder groups such as local industry communities, Dazhou area meat processing enterprises, wholesalers, etc. in multiple ways to increase exposure; at the same time, consultation channels and organization guides were opened up. Open a 24-hour consultation hotline to answer bidders' questions in a timely manner, and organize on-site inspections of the subject matter by interested bidders.
On November 1, 2025, the sale bidding officially began. After several rounds of fierce bidding, the buyer Ma won the batch of beef at the highest price of 936,700 yuan, with a premium rate of 105.48%. The sale price was paid in full to the account designated by Tongchuan Court on the day of the transaction. At present, the delivery of this batch of beef has been completed, the storage costs will be deducted from the sale price first, and the remaining balance has been preserved in accordance with the law.
This case is a typical case involving the rapid liquidation of fresh and perishable products such as frozen fresh products through online judicial procedures. The Tongchuan Court fully recognized that the special property of perishable and near-expiration frozen beef has a high risk of "frozen products deteriorating and the value returning to zero". After fully considering the characteristics of the property, and guided by the concept of good faith and civilized execution, the Tongchuan Court shortened the disposal time to the shortest and maximized the value of the property through a series of innovative measures such as rapid response, joint coordination, professional inquiry, and multi-dimensional promotion. The successful execution of this case reflects the people's court's working principle of balancing execution efficiency and rights protection during the execution procedure, and maximizing the protection of the legitimate interests of all parties. It is a vivid practice of the people's court optimizing the property disposal mechanism, provides experience for the execution and disposal of perishable items in the province, and injects strong judicial momentum into optimizing the legalized business environment.
In the case of a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute between Yang and He, the People's Court of Peng'an County, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Peng'an Court) legally ruled that He should pay Yang a compensation of more than 130,000 yuan. After the judgment came into effect, He failed to fulfill his obligation to pay compensation, and Yang applied to Peng'an Court for compulsory execution.
During the execution process, the Peng'an Court contacted He many times and ordered him to perform his obligations, but He refused on the grounds of "inability to perform." After investigation, it was found that during the trial of the case, He donated the house he shared with his wife Zheng to others through a divorce agreement and went through the registration of property rights transfer, resulting in He having no property for execution in his name. Following the explanation and guidance of the Peng'an Court, Yang petitioned the court to revoke He's donation and was supported. The house had been vacant for a long time and met the disposal conditions. The Peng'an Court sealed it in accordance with the law and posted a sealing notice on the entrance door. The house involved in the case was finally sold at a judicial auction for 358,900 yuan.
After the court sealed the vacant house, He and Zheng entered and lived in the vacant house without the consent of the court, resulting in the house being unable to be delivered to the buyer. The Peng'an Court explained the law to the two men five times, but they had a tyrannical attitude and refused to retreat. After the communication was fruitless, the Peng'an Court sent the two men a compulsory vacation notice. After the expiration of the term, the two still refused to vacate. In view of He's resistance, the Peng'an Court decided to detain him for 15 days. After the expiration of the detention period, He intensified his efforts and maliciously encouraged his elderly parents to move into the house involved in the case and continued to obstruct the execution. The Peng'an Court immediately admonished the elderly for illegally moving into the house auctioned by the court without authorization, and provided ideological enlightenment to the elderly from a rational and legal perspective. In order to ensure the smooth progress of the evacuation work, Peng'an Court has formulated a thorough evacuation work plan. On the day of vacation, 3 judges of the collegial panel led 14 auxiliary staff and 13 bailiffs to carry out the forced vacation. 2 deputies to the National People's Congress and 2 members of the CPPCC witnessed the execution on site. 3 community workers, 3 notaries and 2 medical staff assisted in the execution, and the forced vacation was successfully completed.
In judicial practice, individual persons subject to execution artificially resist execution and transfer property through divorce or donation. In this case, the Peng'an Court keenly saw through the transfer of property by the person subject to execution to avoid execution, and guided the applicant to revoke the improper donation through litigation in accordance with the law, thus clearing obstacles for the execution of the case. Later, the person subject to execution seized the house and resisted execution. In the face of all kinds of obstruction and resistance to execution by persons subject to execution, the execution court not only practiced the concept of good-faith and civilized execution, collaborated with the community to explain the law and clarify the principles many times, and established a safe bottom line for execution work, but also decisively adopted judicial detention and forced evacuation measures to demonstrate the compulsory execution. During the vacation process, the enforcement court invited deputies to the National People's Congress and members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference to witness the execution, and the entire process was supervised to ensure that the enforcement behavior was standardized and transparent. This case has a good balance between the rigidity of the law and the warmth of the judiciary, achieving the organic unity of legal effects and social effects, and has reference significance for solving the problems of evading execution and obstructing execution.
In 2014, a chemical company in Guang'an suffered from a serious debt crisis due to poor management and management, which triggered many disputes over employee wages, sales contracts, project arrears, etc. More than 200 cases were implemented one after another, with the amount involved reaching more than 2 billion yuan. The cases were characterized by a large number of people involved, a large amount of money involved, and complex creditor-debt relationships.
In order to properly resolve conflicts and disputes, the People's Court of Qianfeng District, Guang'an City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as Qianfeng Court) established a working group to concentrate its case handling efforts on a series of enforcement cases involving a chemical company in Guang'an. During the execution process, an in-depth investigation was carried out to sort out the assets under the company's name, and assets such as land, factories, vehicles, equity, machinery and equipment under the company's name were seized in accordance with the law. In order to properly dispose of the company's assets, relevant functional departments have organized and coordinated multiple discussions on asset disposal plans. After multiple rounds of in-depth analysis and evaluation, it was found that although the company is currently insolvent, its core production qualifications and some high-quality assets still have use value. Direct enforcement will cause the company to be unable to operate normally and trigger a series of social risks. Promoting the company's resumption of work and production is the best solution to this case.
In order to achieve the goals of protecting people's livelihood, stabilizing employment, and promoting development, the Qianfeng Court made good use of the "enforcement, bankruptcy and connection" working mechanism, gave full play to the functions of the bankruptcy and reorganization system, and promoted the company to resolve the crisis and resume production. Through the active guidance of the execution judge, the company agreed to apply for bankruptcy reorganization. After review, the Qianfeng Court believed that a chemical company in Guang'an had salvage value and ruled to accept the bankruptcy reorganization application in accordance with the law. After accepting the case, Qianfeng Court gave full play to the advantages of the connection system between execution and bankruptcy, strengthened the connection between execution and bankruptcy, and promoted the smooth progress of the reorganization procedure. In the end, the court ruled to approve the reorganization plan and terminate the reorganization procedure, successfully promoting the resolution of 214 enforcement cases involving more than 200 creditors.
After the reorganization plan was approved, the company reported to the Qianfeng Court that it had been included in the list of dishonest persons subject to execution by courts in many places in Sichuan and Chongqing, which had hindered corporate financing and made it difficult to resume production. Qianfeng Court immediately launched a cross-domain collaboration mechanism and went to multiple courts to communicate. After multiple rounds of negotiations, it successfully reached consensus with eight grassroots courts in Sichuan and Chongqing on credit repair standards and follow-up supervisory measures. The relevant courts blocked the company's untrustworthy information in accordance with the law, successfully repaired the company's credit, and facilitated the resumption of work and production.
This series of enforcement cases involves a large number of people, a large amount of money involved, and complex creditor-debt relationships. Direct enforcement can easily lead to the inability of enterprises to operate normally and trigger a series of social risks. By making good use of the "enforcement, bankruptcy, and connection" procedures and giving full play to the "enforcement, bankruptcy, and integration" system functions, Qianfeng Court not only successfully revitalized the high-quality assets of distressed enterprises and promoted the resumption of work and production, but also safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of creditors, successfully resolved debt disputes left over from the past ten years, and achieved good social results. In response to the financing and operating difficulties caused by companies' records of dishonesty, Qianfeng Court took the initiative to break down geographical barriers, open up channels for cross-regional judicial collaboration, promote courts in other places to lift compulsory measures in accordance with the law, shield information about dishonesty, and restore corporate credit, providing a model for helping restructured companies resume work and production.
From September to November 2018, Zhou borrowed a total of 1.2 million yuan from Du several times. In January 2021, Zhou was deeply in debt and in order to evade debt performance, he approached Leng. The two conspired to sign a false house sales contract with Yang, a person not involved in the case, and backdated the signing time of the contract and receipt to October 2020.
In April 2021, Du sued Zhou to the People's Court of Dongpo District, Meishan City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as Dongpo Court) over a loan dispute, and applied for pre-litigation property preservation in accordance with the law. The Dongpo Court made a civil ruling to seal up the aforementioned house and parking space of Zhou in Panzhihua. After trial, the court ordered Zhou to repay the loan principal of 1.2 million yuan and interest to Du. After the judgment came into effect, Zhou failed to perform the obligations determined by the effective judgment, so Du applied for compulsory execution, and the Dongpo Court opened the case for enforcement in August of the same year. During the execution process, because Zhou was unable to repay his debts, the Dongpo Court planned to dispose of the house that had been sealed under Zhou’s name during the preservation stage. In order to resist execution, in October 2021, after Zhou and Leng conspired, Zhou signed a house sales contract with Fang, a party outside the case, for the aforementioned house, sold the house involved in the case for 795,000 yuan, and asked Fang to remit the house payment to someone else's account, and then divided it between Zhou and Leng.
At the beginning of 2022, Fang found that the house he purchased could not apply for a real estate certificate because it was sealed by the court, so he asked Zhou and Leng for an explanation. Zhou and Leng conspired again and asked Yang, who was not involved in the case, to use the false house purchase and sale agreement signed with Zhou in advance as evidence, fabricated facts, and filed an enforcement objection with the Dongpo Court, requesting the court to lift the seizure of the house involved in the case. After the objection was rejected, Yang filed an enforcement objection. In the lawsuit, it was discovered that the aforementioned Zhou and Leng falsely sold their houses. In addition to this case, Zhou has many other enforcement cases in court, with the unfulfilled amount amounting to more than 2 million yuan.
The Dongpo Court transferred clues that Zhou and Leng were suspected of committing false litigation to the public security organs for investigation. Later, the People's Procuratorate of Dongpo District, Meishan City, Sichuan Province initiated a public prosecution at the Dongpo Court. After trial, the court held that Zhou and Leng filed a civil lawsuit with fabricated facts in order to resist the court's execution, which prevented the house involved in the case from being disposed of according to law for a long time and obstructed judicial order. Their behavior constituted the crime of false litigation. Therefore, on August 29, 2025, Zhou was sentenced to one year and four months in prison and fined RMB 5,000 for the crime of false litigation, and Leng was sentenced to one year and four months in prison and fined RMB 5,000. In addition, the enforcement court conducted a judicial auction of the house involved in the case in accordance with the law, and the auction was completed in August 2025. The execution applicant Du Moumou's rights to win the lawsuit were all realized.
Real estate is a common property of persons subject to execution, and it is also an important guarantee for promoting execution through judicial auctions during execution. In judicial practice, individual persons subject to execution deliberately forge false house sales contracts in order to avoid execution, forge evidence by back-dating the contract and receipt time, and attempt to refuse to perform the obligations determined by the effective judgment through false litigation. In this case, in order to evade execution, Zhou and Leng fabricated facts and allowed a third party to file an objection to execution and file an objection to execution lawsuit to exclude execution, which seriously hindered the normal order of execution. By ascertaining the truth during the litigation, the Dongpo Court severely cracked down on false litigation to evade execution, and held the persons subject to execution criminally responsible in accordance with the law, which fully demonstrated the people's court's zero tolerance for evasion of execution. This case draws an insurmountable legal red line for all persons subject to execution who intend to evade debts through similar means, safeguarding the authority of judicial decisions and enhancing judicial credibility.
In February 2021, the People's Court of Shehong City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Shehong Court) successively made effective judgments on a series of labor contract dispute cases between Chen Moumou, Wei Moumou, and Huang Moumou, and ordered Huang Moumou to pay Chen Moumou and others a total of more than 620,000 yuan in labor remuneration. Because Huang Moumou failed to perform the aforementioned obligations, Chen Moumou, Wei Moumou and others applied to Shehong Court for compulsory execution. After the execution began, the Shehong Court searched for clues about the person subject to execution, Huang Moumou, and his property through multiple channels, but to no avail, and the case was once at a deadlock.
On February 20, 2025, the Shehong Court's "Execution 110" received clues that Huang Moumou appeared in Batang County, Garze Prefecture, Sichuan Province. In view of the fact that the two places are about 870 kilometers apart, the Shehong Court quickly launched the Sichuan Court's "Execution 110" 10" cross-domain collaborative enforcement mechanism, after coordination by the Intermediate People's Court of Suining City, Sichuan Province, the Intermediate People's Court of Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan Province instructed the Batang County People's Court of Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Batang Court) to assist in the implementation. After receiving the order, the Batang Court acted quickly and found that Huang had left Batang County in a car heading towards Qamdo, Tibet. The police officers from the court immediately pursued the driver and contacted the People's Court of Mangkang County, Tibet Autonomous Region, requesting the local court and public security to assist in the arrest. During this period, Batang court police officers continued to communicate with Huang on the phone, informing him of the legal consequences of refusing to perform, and ordering him to return voluntarily to cooperate with the execution.
Under the joint deterrence of courts and public security agencies in many places, Huang returned to Mangkang County on his own that night and went to the Mangkang County People's Court for questioning. The next day, police officers from the Mangkang and Batang courts safely handed him over to the execution officers of the local Shehong Court. It was later verified that Huang Moumou failed to truthfully declare his property and violated the consumption restriction order to evade execution. Immediately, the Shehong Court detained Huang for 15 days in accordance with the law and transferred clues about his suspected crime of resisting law to the public security organs for processing in accordance with the law.
Since the Sichuan High Court comprehensively launched the "Enforcement 110" work in courts across the province in May 2024, courts across the province have continuously strengthened the construction of enforcement coordination and linkage mechanisms with other courts and public security agencies. Through "cross-domain collaboration + police-law linkage", they have been able to accept execution clues 24 hours a day and quickly summon the person subject to execution and check the property of the person subject to execution. Huang Moumou, the person subject to execution in this case, has been hiding his whereabouts for a long time to evade debts. After receiving the clues through the "Execution 110" hotline, the Shehong Court immediately activated the Sichuan Court's "Execution 110" cross-regional collaborative execution mechanism, through multiple courts and public security agencies in Sichuan Province and the Tibet Autonomous Region. Through close collaboration, each department performed its duties and cooperated with each other to form a strong synergy of execution and deterrence, and finally successfully controlled the person subject to execution, which fully demonstrated the strong determination of the People's Court to enforce the law despite the distance, formed a strong deterrent to the person subject to execution, and effectively solved the problem of execution, investigation and prosecution.
During the litigation process, the applicant applied for property preservation to the Yibin Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as Yibin Intermediate Court). The court ruled in accordance with the law to freeze the funds in the bank account of the insured person, and completed the freezing of 15 bank accounts of the insured person on the next day of the ruling. The actual frozen amount was more than 190 million yuan.
A technology company in Yibin applied to the Yibin Intermediate People's Court to replace the frozen bank account funds with machines and equipment of full value in its name on the grounds that its basic account was frozen and it seriously affected the company's normal production and operations. After review, the Yibin Intermediate People's Court believed that the person being preserved was a high-tech private enterprise that was mainly supported by Yibin City, and its normal operation had a positive effect on the local economy and industrial development. In order to implement the concept of good faith and civilized execution and minimize the adverse impact of judicial measures on business operations, the court, after confirming that the value of the replacement property is sufficient to cover the preservation subject matter and consulting the opinions of the person applying for preservation, ruled in accordance with the law to lift the freeze on the bank account and instead seize 365 core machines and equipment provided by a technology company in Yibin. It also adopted flexible seizure enforcement measures and allowed the company to continue to use the equipment for production and operations after completing registration and other tasks.
This case is a typical case in which the people's court deeply implemented the concept of good faith and civilized execution during the property preservation stage, flexibly used coercive measures, accurately balanced the protection of creditor's rights with the maintenance of enterprise survival and development, and served the construction of a legalized business environment. Faced with the actual situation that the enterprise to be preserved is a high-tech private enterprise with local key support, and the freezing of basic accounts may lead to a shutdown of operations, the Yibin Intermediate People's Court did not mechanically solidify the preservation measures, but increased the review and coordination efforts. On the one hand, it reviewed to ensure that the value of the replacement assets fully covered the creditor's rights, and on the other hand, after comprehensive research and judgment, Later, in accordance with the authority, the company promptly adopted the flexible sealing of movable assets, replacement and freezing of basic accounts, allowing enterprises to continue to use core production equipment to ensure their hematopoietic functions and normal production and operations. This achieved the goal of "sealing property without sealing operations, freezing quotas without freezing vitality", and vividly explained the judicial role of "releasing water to fish" and helping enterprises to bail out.
In April 2005, an investment company in Sichuan signed an Equity Transfer Agreement with an investment group company in Chongqing, agreeing to transfer 50 million shares at a consideration of 52.5 million yuan. After an investment company in Sichuan made payment in accordance with the contract, the equity was unable to be transferred for a long time due to a dispute in another case. Later, an investment company in Sichuan filed a lawsuit to fulfill its transfer obligations. The Sichuan High Court issued a civil mediation letter in March 2025, confirming that the subject equity and income from April 3, 2005 were owned by an investment company in Sichuan. Because an investment group company in Chongqing failed to perform its transfer obligations, the case entered execution procedures.
In April 2025, the Sichuan High Court designated the Ya'an Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Ya'an Intermediate Court) to implement the case. Ya'an Intermediate People's Court reviewed the equity ownership of the entire case file, produced 16 securities-related execution rulings and 22 enforcement assistance notices, and organized 8 coordination meetings between the two parties to resolve major differences at one time between the two parties in terms of equity income, management expenses, tax liability, etc., and create conditions for equity transfer. Later, the Ya'an Intermediate People's Court coordinated the unblocking of equity interests in Chengdu and Liangshan, and handled the transfer of 74.304 million shares, the pledge of 10 million shares, and the deduction of more than 35 million yuan in bank funds. Finally, all implementation contents such as equity transfer, pledge assistance, and fund deductions of the listed company were efficiently completed within 103 days.
This case involves a complex equity dispute that lasted 20 years across regions and involved private enterprises and state-owned enterprises. The Ya'an Intermediate People's Court adheres to the enforcement concept of fully realizing the rights and interests of private enterprises in winning cases, adopts a step-by-step execution and precise promotion strategy, and achieves the conclusion of the case in just over a hundred days, freeing the enterprise from lengthy litigation disputes, fully releasing the vitality of the enterprise's production factors, and demonstrating the intensity and warmth of judicial protection of enterprise rights and interests. On the one hand, in view of the complex ownership and professional rules of securities assets, a step-by-step execution strategy is adopted to dismantle and implement complex matters such as equity transfer, pledge registration, and fund deductions, and adopt a "communication-implementation-feedback" progressive execution method, which not only ensures the realization of the winning rights of private enterprises, but also minimizes the impact on the normal operations of the enterprise subject to execution. On the other hand, by connecting with financial regulatory authorities and cooperating with multiple parties, a series of derivative issues such as the attribution of income and tax liability arising from equity delivery can be solved at once, and obstacles to equity registration can be overcome, providing a replicable and scalable practical sample for the efficient disposal of financial assets.
In 2017, an energy joint-stock company in Sichuan was applied for compulsory enforcement because it failed to fulfill its dismantling obligations. After the other party to the settlement withdrew its application for enforcement, the People's Court of Qingbaijiang District, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Qingbaijiang Court) lifted the consumption restrictions and other compulsory measures against a certain energy joint-stock company in Sichuan in accordance with the law, and the case was terminated.
In January 2025, an energy joint-stock company in Sichuan reported to the Qingbaijiang Court that many mainstream business information platforms still marked its company and legal representatives as personnel with height restrictions. This delayed information caused the goodwill of an energy joint-stock company in Sichuan to be damaged and business cooperation was hindered. The Qingbaijiang Court promptly lifted its consumption restriction measures and issued a "Letter of Explanation of Enterprise Litigation-Involved Information" to a Sichuan energy company, confirming in writing that its credit status had been restored, eliminating financing difficulties or commercial cooperation obstacles caused by the company's litigation-related information. At the same time, the Qingbaijiang Court simultaneously sent a judicial proposal to the platform involved, proposing systemic governance suggestions on the strict use of judicial disclosure data of the People's Court in compliance with laws and regulations, ensuring the accuracy of platform information, and improving the lagging information correction mechanism. After follow-up follow-up visits and confirmation, the platforms involved have completed information correction, and will further strengthen the data information review process, improve the complaint and objection response mechanism, and strive to improve the accuracy of information.
Good corporate credit is the "lifeline" for the survival and development of an enterprise. The fragmented collection and static display of various types of corporate credit information by commercial information platforms may lead to "changed information but not updated platforms" becoming a new obstacle to corporate development. The Qingbaijiang Court carried out credit repair in a timely manner and issued vouchers to the enterprise to achieve precise credit repair of the enterprise. At the same time, we proactively extend our executive functions, promote relevant business information platforms to improve mechanisms, improve the standardization and accuracy of the application of judicial credit information, solve urgent problems with "immediate governance", and consolidate the foundation with "long-term governance" to promote standardized governance in the industry. This provides a replicable and popularized example for establishing a long-term mechanism for credit repair of companies involved in law enforcement, promoting the construction of an honest society, and continuously optimizing the legalized business environment.
In a dispute over a loan contract between a bank in Zigong and a pipe company in Sichuan, a technology company in Sichuan, etc., after mediation by the court, a pipe company in Sichuan should repay the loan principal of 6.8 million yuan and pay interest to a bank in Zigong. After the case entered the compulsory execution procedure, the People's Court of Gongjing District, Zigong City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Gongjing Court) seized a factory owned by a pipe company in Sichuan, the person subject to execution, and auctioned the mortgaged factory through an online judicial auction, and a Zigong technology company won the bid.
The Gongjing Court found that the factory involved in the case was leased to an industrial company in Sichuan, a non-party outside the case, after establishing a mortgage for a bank in Zigong. The company is an entity with normal production and operations and is responsible for the employment of hundreds of employees. Forced clearance may lead to multiple social risks such as the suspension of production and the placement of employees. At the same time, the buyer, a technology company in Zigong, plans to use the won factory to promote the "technology + cultural tourism" integrated industry project that is supported by the local area. In order to balance "guaranteing the implementation of key projects" and "maintaining the survival of lessee enterprises", the Gongjing Court relied on the government-court linkage mechanism and collaborated with the local management committee to help an industrial company in Sichuan choose a new factory site to solve the relocation problem. At the same time, it will coordinate with the Municipal Investment Promotion Bureau, Municipal Affairs and Business Bureau and other departments to promote implementation and guide all parties to negotiate and determine the relocation plan. On September 4, 2025, the 9103.3 square meter factory building involved in the case was successfully vacated and delivered to the buyer, a technology company in Zigong.
In the enforcement of enterprise-related cases, the people's courts should not only increase enforcement efforts and fully ensure the realization of the rights and interests of the winning parties, but also adhere to the concept of good faith and civilized enforcement to minimize the impact on the normal production and operation of the enterprise being executed and the enterprise being forcibly vacated. This case involves complex factors such as bank mortgage rights, non-case lease rights and buyer ownership. The outcome of the case is not only related to the resolution of financial debt risks, but also related to the implementation of local cultural, tourism and technology integration projects. It also faces the task of ensuring the normal production and operation of the leased enterprise. Gongjing Court strengthens overall planning and coordination, fully relies on the government-court linkage mechanism, and maximizes the interests of all parties and social effects. Through the courts and government departments performing their respective duties and working together, the problem of relocation of leasing enterprises was solved, the normal production and operation of the lessee enterprises was ensured, and the physical enterprises were saved; the on-time delivery of the factory buildings involved in the case ensured the smooth implementation of major cultural and tourism technology integration projects, boosted the development of new productive forces, and optimized the legalized business environment; the smooth disposal and delivery of mortgaged properties enabled the bank's financial claims to be smoothly realized, effectively resolving financial debt risks, and achieving a win-win result for all parties.
After the construction of a real estate in Lu County started, due to the capital chain of the developer, a real estate development company in Luzhou, the capital chain was broken, and the construction was stopped after the ceiling was capped in 2018. Since 2018, 54 cases have entered enforcement procedures, and real estate properties have been sealed up by multiple courts and are on the verge of bankruptcy. In 2022, the Luzhou Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province designated the Luxian People's Court of Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Luxian Court) for centralized execution in a cross-execution manner.
The Luxian County Court vigorously carried out coordination work to promote consensus among all creditors and persons subject to execution, promote the reconstruction of the real estate, and enhance the repayment ability through adding value to the "live" real estate. In January 2024, each creditor agreed that a third-party company would advance funds to complete the construction. After completion and acceptance, the sales funds obtained from the sale of the building would be repaid in the order of funds advanced by the third-party company, statutory priority claims, and ordinary claims determined by effective legal documents. At the same time, an application was made to lift the seal on the project, allowing third-party companies to enter the site for construction. The building reconstruction funds and sales funds are supervised by the County Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau to ensure project construction. At the end of that month, the entire building resumed work. In June 2024, sales will be restarted and funds will be withdrawn. As of November 2025, the building will be fully completed and accepted, with a total output value of 160 million yuan. According to the agreement reached by the creditors and referring to the order of bankruptcy settlement, the third-party company and the original construction unit realized the project payment priority of more than 69 million yuan and more than 26 million yuan respectively through the method of paying off the debt with property; the mortgagee realized the creditor's rights of more than 10 million yuan. After paying off the mortgage claims, deducting taxes and deposits, the remaining 30 commercial houses and 60 parking spaces were valued at more than 15.5 million yuan and paid off to general creditors in proportion.
The implementation of real estate projects under construction is not only related to the housing rights of the house buyers, but also faces the balance of various rights and interests such as mortgage rights, priority rights to receive payment for construction projects, and ordinary creditor's rights. When all creditors were unwilling to let the developer go bankrupt, the Luxian Court did not force bankruptcy in handling the case. Instead, it adhered to the leadership of the party committee and government, innovated execution methods, and drew lessons from the concepts and ideas of bankruptcy reorganization in the execution procedures to revitalize the problematic properties. On the one hand, it builds a platform to guide creditors to reach an agreement on issues such as introducing funds to rebuild real estate and predetermining the order of repayment with reference to bankruptcy reorganization, and promotes the unblocking of projects and the smooth completion and acceptance of real estate; on the other hand, it relies on the joint supervision of sales funds by the government and the academy to ensure the safety of funds and the realization of various claims, and successfully resolve debt disputes. The enforcement of this series of cases not only realizes the rights and interests of the winning companies, but also protects the sustainable development of the private companies subject to enforcement, and gives full play to the positive role of the judiciary in serving high-quality social and economic development and maintaining social stability.
Previous article：What should I do if a private enterprise’s loan is overdue and the bank sues me and my account is frozen? The court's plan saved a technology company
Next article：Jiaxing Court’s Ten Typical Cases of Optimizing the Legal Business Environment
Recommended reading
- Mineral rights mortgage financing: a new financing path for private mining companies
- Should the government’s investment promotion agreement be scrapped at the drop of a hat? The law has your back!
- Mining in the name of land leveling? The Central Inspection Team is exposed! Mine bosses, please don’t step into this trap.
- Mining license renewal delayed? The new regulations stipulate that a reply must be made within 15 days
- New opportunities for administrative reconsideration: increased litigation winning rate, smoother rights protection channels
- Mineral rights mortgage financing: a new financing path for private mining companies
- Should the government’s investment promotion agreement be scrapped at the drop of a hat? The law has your back!
- Mining in the name of land leveling? The Central Inspection Team is exposed! Mine bosses, please don’t step into this trap.
- Are companies being fined too much for small things? Court: The punishment is inappropriate and must be corrected!
- New opportunities for administrative reconsideration: increased litigation winning rate, smoother rights protection channels
