Reflections on the Fundamental Role of Trust AND/AS Worthiness in Social Ordering, the Example of China: 最高人民法院发布严格区分失信、失能被执行人强化信用修复典型案例 [The Supreme People's Court has issued a guiding case of strictly distinguishing untrustworthy and impaired (unable) persons subject to enforcement and strengthening credit repair]

 

Pix credit here (中華人民共和國 - 懲治反革命條例 )

In Europe--and from there to European colonial territories especially in the Americas--the debate about trust and worthiness has been, in its contemporary forms, at the heart of debates about the nature and purpose of society and its collective organizations from the time of the great debates before the Spanish Imperial court in the 16th century and from there throughout (at least initially Western) Europe. A central element of that debate focused on people at the margins of social organization and the question turned on the way in which one developed conceptual boxes (with consequences) into which one could place them. (“Los fingidos y vagabundos: On the Origins of Personal Responsibility and the Welfare State In Early Modern Spain and Its Implications for Welfare Reform in the United States,” 3 Loyola Poverty Law Journal 3:1-55 (1997). DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE:  3LoyolaPovertyLRev1(1997)Fingidos); for other writings HERE).

At its core in the early 16th century was the connection between worthiness and (social) utility, and also between worthiness and conformity to social expectations.  On the one side was the apparatus of the Church and the forms of what then was understood as Catholic social teaching, one which tended toward the core principle that everyone ought to be aided and that aid was a part of the evangelizing mission of the Church, broadly understood.  As such, all members of society would be expected to contribute tot he effort. On the other side was the State apparatus and the forms of understanding of the social/political purpose and roles of individuals within a society functionally differentiated, organized through hierarchies of status, and developing more aggressive structures in law, norms, and expectations, about the necessary contributions of everyone in, for, and as a contribution to their place in the social order.  And all of this for the greater glory of the State, which then aligned with the forward march and contribution to the greater glory of the Church. 

Pix credit here

Beneath all of this was the foundational notion that mendigos y vagabundos (beggars and vagabonds) were not only stealing from the productive capacity of the rest of society, but that they were, by their very nature, a subversive social force that has to be eradicated or at least controlled. The connection between the underworld of the poor (under established or more conventionally productive society) and the criminal underworld was always lurking somewhere in the collective mind of social forces with social ordering to protect. The "universalists" sought to aid all and evangelize the poor out of their evil ways to make them worthy; the "contributionalists" sought to aid all through more precise systems of rewards and punishments the ends of which were to make everyone worthy, and worthiness was marked by utility, and utility was marked by  trust. The nature of the mechanisms of control, reform, and the debates about the nature and manifestation of (personal and institutional) responsibility passed through many phases, from transport to colonial outposts, to workhouses and Western style laojiao (laogai; 劳动改造) institutions of reform or re-education through labor (formally abolished in China in 2013). 

The debates passed into what became Protestant Europe through the Low Countries and from there to England where it produced. among other things the Elizabethan Poor Law. And from there it was carried to the North American colonies established by or with the permission of the English Crown. It survives today as gloriously interested as it was in the early 16th century in the form of the endless debates in the United States about the nature, scope and expectations around "welfare"--pitting those who would see support broadened and those who would require some sort of utility. It passed as well to the Spanish colonial Empire where it formed part of the intricate politics between the Spanish metropolis, the colonial political and religious establishments. And of course, the notion is buried within the now global debates about "welfare state" and the nature of the obligation/duty/responsibility of some social/political collective do manage/eradicate/re-educate/reform/support elements deemed in need of any or all all of these. 

The larger point of this rather long digression is the fundamental conceptual core around which it has remained a lively and unresolved issue of public/private/cultural/religious debate and action to out own time. Though it is evidenced quite clearly in the debates about "welfare" it is there only a perhaps minor manifestation of the deeper issue of trust-worthiness in the rationalization of social collectives.  It is not enough to be worthy or to engender trust; what has become a necessary ordering block of social relations is the alignment of trust and or as worthiness, and the essential element of trust-worthiness in operating systems of rewards and punishments that, at one extreme--can affect that way an individual or collective organ is made meaningful in society, and thus meaningful, can be rewarded or punished for correct or incorrect behaviors. More precisely, the issue of trust AND/AS worthiness continues to seep into virtually all aspects of the organization of society, and thus, into the ways in which governing institutions (of whatever character of scope of authority). In this sense it is as much a central element in the ordering of conceptual cages of duty in society in religious communities as it is in the post-Enlightenment ideological orders that range from markets driven liberal democracy to Marxist-Leninist vanguard led-guided collectives.  

Pix credit here

Society, especially in the 21st Century, and increasingly aided by technology, has tended toward the more measured approaches to coercion of expectation of conformity to social norms--including tose norms that impose duties and responsibilities the details of which are encoded in a person (or institution's) status, role, and place within social hierarchies (including pathways to navigate in, through, and up social orders, and with its to change the palette of one's expectations and circumstances).  Whether one is a universalist or a contributionaliust--whether one believes in the power of evangelization, or that of utility through (re)education focused on labor (or something else)--the result in this century is the same: the injection of all social actors into increasingly complex and even more increasingly tech managed systems of punishments and rewards (e.g., “The algorithmic law of business and human rights: constructing private transnational law of ratings, social credit and accountability measures,” International Journal of Law in Context (2022), 1–19), the purpose of which is to develop a system in which trust can be secured through the stimulus of punishments and rewards, and that this system can, itself, then produce worthiness--a worthiness not necessarily inherent in an individual or in an institution, but rather a worthiness that, detached from its object, is produced by responses to external stimuli (“Next Generation Law: Data Driven Governance and Accountability Based Regulatory Systems in the West, and in Social Credit Regimes in China,” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 28:123-172 (2018)).  

Trust, of course, is an essential element of worthiness. Trust, in the conceptual cages of social relations, has come to be understood as an expectation of conformity to social norms (including the social norm of non-conformity). Those social norms are to some extent built into law (and thus the rule of law as a means of detaching legal rules of social expectation backed by the power of the institutions of state from the fickleness of its human overseers (as elected, appointed or other officials or otherwise servants of the state). Nonetheless, they are also built into and serve as the bars of the cognitive cage that keep people within the scope of expectation, and that, therefore, can also serve as a means of judging them. Thus judged, people can then be sorted out and rewarded, or punished--either to reform them (to make them something different from what they were) or re-educate them, or remove them from congress with other members of the social collective. Worthiness is the actual experience of trust in society.  If trust is the object/state of being that represents that cluster of expectations that represent the ideal of social relations, the worthiness is its phenomenology--the actualization of trust through what a person (legal or natural) does or does not do (“Social Credit “in” or “as” the Cage of Regulation of Socialist Legality,” The China Review 24(3):71-106 (2024)).  To manage these great instruments of externalized reards and punishments is to produce the great action-machine, the phenomenology, of trust, and with it, the power to align action with the normative aspirations of worthiness. 

 It is with that in mind that the role of the courts are sometimes interesting.  In particular, and specifically in China, the role of the courts as an element of larger systems of trust and worthiness building opens a window on the application of these broader concepts in a specific context and under a specific political-ideological system with national historical-cultural characteristics. As part of its system of Guiding Cases (中国指导性案例) (see here for a nice explanation; current developments here; database here) the Supreme People's Court issued an interesting set of "guiding Cases" on judgment defaulter lists managed through the courts as part of China's social credit system: 最高人民法院发布严格区分失信、失能被执行人强化信用修复典型案例 [The Supreme People's Court has issued a guiding case of strictly distinguishing untrustworthy and impaired persons subject to enforcement and strengthening credit repair].

pix credit here (Strive to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case New media submission email: xmt@rmfyb.cn)

 

Jeremy Daum for China Law Translate  nicely examined this set of Guiding Cases in the social credit context.

Entry into the court’s defaulter list, however, is primarily limited to those who have an effective legal judgment against them but refuse to satisfy it despite having the ability to do so. Based loosely on the courts’ power to preserve assets to satisfy judgments, penalties under the defaulter list include limits on high spending. The restrictions on air travel, fancy trains, private schooling, etc., which are frequently associated with social credit in Western media, are almost entirely restricted to the court judgment defaulter list. With nearly 2.5 million entries made to the list in 2024 (down 23.4% from 2023), the judgment defaulter list is already a critical enforcement tool for the courts. It is so distinct from other social credit blacklists, however, that it is probably best to understand the defaulter list solely as a court enforcement mechanism rather than thinking of it as ‘social credit’ at all.

 It is in that context that the more fundamental debate about the nature of trust and worthiness, and the pathways toward the attainment of a trust-worthy person or collective becomes interesting. Here the court distinguishes two sorts of behaviors with different consequences: for those who are unable (presumably by reason of circumstances, whether or their own making or not  will likely be refined in the future) there is an effort to help; for those who refuse, there is punishment.  The former is worthy; the latter is not. Jeremy Daum's summarey and analysis lays this out quite nicely:

 The court should only blacklist judgment defaulters who have the capacity to fulfill judgments against them, but still refuse to do so. There has been minimal attention, however, to the processes for establishing whether a party has the ability to satisfy a judgment.

The Supreme People’s Court’s recent example cases on distinguishing ‘inability’  from ‘refusal’ to fulfil judgments seemed set to finally address this issue.  Rather than detailing procedures for considering parties’ actual financial situations, however, the cases emphasize a more holistic, discretionary, ad hoc approach, urging judges to consider both the defaulters’ assets and attitudes when planning enforcement. The primary focus seems to be on ensuring that penalties for default do not destroy otherwise viable businesses.

Taken together, the main messages of the cases can be summarized as:

1. Stop mechanical application of the judgment defaulter list in all cases, and make real inquiries into the specific reasons for default, and ensure that enforcement measures correspond to actual conditions.
2. Seek sustainable outcomes for all parties:
   1. Recognize that the goal is satisfying the judgment, not punishment, and employ measures that allow businesses to survive to acquire assets sufficient to fulfill their obligations.
   2. Acknowledge the broader impact of a company failing, including on its customers and the industry, and encourage resolutions that protect all parties.
3. Consider the defaulter’s subjective malice or good intentions, employing penalties for truly intentional harms.

Pix credit here (help counterrevolutionaries turn over a new leaf

A very small example, really. Nonetheless it is a potent reminder  that the fundamental debate about the recognition, as well as the consequences of approaches to trust and worthiness continue ti pervade social relations. It is in the way in which these notions are both rationalized, and thus rationalized, manifested in action, that tends to serve as n important structural support for the organization and operation of a social collective. The fundamental issue remains the same--if on starts from the ordering premise that everyone be salved--are all people worthy of salvation--then the structures of society will be fashioned around salvation. If one starts from the proposition that some cannot be saved, then social ordering becomes more like what it is in both liberal democracy and Marxist Leninist States post-Enlightenment--systems of democratic dictatorship in every conceivable form.  There is at least a heavily dashed line between the conception of Mao Zedong's people's democratic dictatorship ("The combination of these two aspects, democracy for the people and dictatorship over the reactionaries, of Deng Xiaoping's On Opposing Wrong Ideological Tendencies ("The reason the rectification movement back in the Yan’an days was directed against subjectivism, sectarianism and stereotyped Party writing was that it aimed to solve fundamental problems rather than side issues."); and on a cultivation of a patriotic front (here), and the approach that the SPC reflects in its confrontation with the object and modalities of its defaulter list (as punishment) and its role as social agent producing harmony and collective progress (as reward/duty). What connects them is the notion that worthiness is a function of an attainable ideal and that trust comes action that suggests an active effort to move towards that ideal. The impaired judgment creditor can be helped to overcome their challenges; the intentional defaulter must be punished. 

The full text of  最高人民法院发布严格区分失信、失能被执行人强化信用修复典型案例 [The Supreme People's Court has issued a guiding case of strictly distinguishing untrustworthy and impaired persons subject to enforcement and strengthening credit repair] follows below in the original Chinese and in a crude working translation that gets the point across. 

 

Pix credit here; Michelangelo Last Judgment

最高人民法院发布严格区分失信、失能被执行人强化信用修复典型案例

2024年以来，最高人民法院立足服务经济社会发展大局，指导全国法院扎实开展“失信”与“失能”分类管理相关工作，在严厉打击严重失信行为的同时，为确无财产可供执行的“失能”人员纾困解绑，帮助“诚实而不幸”的被执行人走出债务困局，回归正常生活。全国法院坚持为大局服务、为人民司法，积极适用失信惩戒宽限期制度和信用修复措施，帮助努力偿债的被执行人经济再生，失信惩戒工作整体呈现“减存遏增、标本兼治”的良好态势。2024年，全国法院新纳入失信被执行人名单245.7万人次，同比下降23.4%；282.1万人次通过信用修复回归市场，同比增长35.4%，失信被执行人名单人数十年来首次下降。既维护胜诉当事人的合法权益，又为有发展潜能的市场主体“造血再生”创造条件，进一步提振市场主体信心，有效缓和社会矛盾，为推进优化法治化营商环境和维护社会和谐稳定发展贡献了司法力量。

实践证明，失信惩戒制度是推动执行工作发展的重要举措，在有效打击恶意逃废债行为、维护胜诉当事人合法权益、推动解决执行难等方面发挥了十分重要的作用。近年来，最高人民法院以构建失信惩戒联动机制为基础，建立健全失信被执行人名单制度，畅通信用信息共享渠道，提升失信惩戒信息化建设水平，通过制定司法解释、强化联合惩戒、发布典型案例等举措，打击规避执行、逃避执行、抗拒执行等严重失信行为，切实维护了胜诉当事人的合法权益。自2013年10月实施失信被执行人名单制度以来，截至2025年6月30日，累计有1710万人次迫于信用惩戒和限制消费压力自觉主动履行了生效法律文书确定的义务，或者与申请执行人协商达成和解协议。当前，被执行人规避执行、逃避执行、抗拒执行等问题依然突出，人民法院仍需持续加大执行力度，对于存在恶意失信行为的被执行人应当继续强化失信惩戒，及时保障胜诉当事人实现合法权益。

为强化区分“失信”与“失能”相关工作，持续提升失信惩戒工作的靶向性、精准度和便捷性，指导各地人民法院严格规范公正适用失信惩戒制度，把信用惩戒聚焦到对少数规避执行、逃避执行、抗拒执行行为上来，实现依法履职与服务大局、促进发展相统一，最高人民法院选取并发布九个严格区分失信、失能被执行人强化信用修复典型案例。本次发布的典型案例有以下特点：

一、严格区分“失信”与“失能”。人民法院严格按照法律和司法解释规定的条件和程序采取纳入失信被执行人名单措施，在审查是否将被执行人纳入失信被执行人名单时，通过分析案件具体情况，核实被执行人不履行义务的原因，综合判断被执行人是否属于“有履行能力而拒不履行生效法律文书确定义务”“无正当理由拒不履行执行和解协议”等失信情形。对于未履行义务的被执行人，充分考量其是否具有失能的情形，杜绝不区分实际情况的机械执法和简单粗放执法，避免将“失能”但无“失信”行为的被执行人纳入失信被执行人名单。在蒋某忠等与黎某机动车交通事故责任纠纷执行案中，人民法院查明被执行人积极履行义务，由于生活陷入困境，属于客观上无履行能力的“失能”情形，通过执行和解、司法救助的方式，最终实现案结事了，兼顾了执行的“力度”与“温度”。

二、为确无财产可供执行的“失能”人员纾困解绑。对有发展前景但暂时存在困难的被执行人，人民法院积极适用失信惩戒宽限期制度，根据案件实际情况，给予被执行人一至三个月的宽限期，在依法保障胜诉当事人实现权益的同时，最大限度减少对被执行主体合法权益的影响，被执行人最终由拒不履行转变为与申请执行人达成执行和解并积极履行。在江西某科技有限公司与上海某汽车有限公司等买卖合同纠纷执行案、福建某建设工程有限公司与龙岩某科技有限公司租赁合同纠纷执行案、于某与长春某物业公司借款合同纠纷执行案、北京某建设集团有限公司与北京某施工集团有限公司合同纠纷执行案中，人民法院充分考虑被执行主体面临的实际困难，采用“活封活扣”、给予失信惩戒宽限期等措施，既让陷入资金流动性危机的被执行人得以继续生产经营，又最大程度保障所涉案件申请执行人的胜诉权益，让执行措施的温度唤醒更多主体遵守规则的向善本能，实现双赢多赢共赢。

三、坚决惩治恶意失信行为。实践中，有的被执行人故意隐匿行踪，下落不明；有的公司停业、歇业，而原企业主另行注册公司继续经营原业务；有的企业法定代表人为逃避责任，将年近九旬的老母亲变更为法定代表人；有的依然大肆高消费，过着穷奢极欲、纸醉金迷的生活；有的公开肆意对抗甚至使用暴力抗拒执行。这些恶意失信行为，严重扰乱了正常的市场经济秩序，损害了胜诉当事人的合法权益。人民法院坚持对此类严重失信行为加大打击力度。在陈某与狄某某民间借贷纠纷执行案中，狄某某以自己身患癌症，需要不定期前往北京等地治疗为由申请解除“纳入失信被执行人名单”“限制消费”措施，执行法院依法予以临时解除，但被执行人却利用“纳入失信被执行人名单”“限制消费”措施被临时解除的机会，多次前往香港、澳门等地消费、赌博，执行法院发现后，移送相关线索，公安机关第一时间对其进行控制，对其拒执行为依法追究刑事责任。

 人民法院严格区分失信、失能被执行人
强化信用修复典型案例

案例1：陈某与狄某某民间借贷纠纷执行案
——以治病为名申请解除失信惩戒措施实则赴澳赌博，依法被以拒执罪追诉

案例2：江西某科技有限公司与上海某汽车有限公司、上海某科技股份有限公司买卖合同纠纷执行案
——暂缓采取失信惩戒措施，助力高新科技企业健康成长

案例3：蒋某忠、蒋某平、蒋某国与黎某机动车交通事故责任纠纷执行案
——精准甄别失能情形，多方联动化解涉民生案件

案例4：福建某建设工程有限公司与龙岩某科技有限公司租赁合同纠纷执行案
——善用失信惩戒宽限期，让“强制腾房”变“续租多赢”

The Supreme People's Court has issued a guiding case of strictly distinguishing untrustworthy and impaired persons subject to enforcement and strengthening credit repair

Since 2024, the Supreme People's Court has been based on serving the overall economic and social development, guiding courts across the country to carry out relevant work related to the classification management of "untrustworthy" [dishonest] and "impaired" [unable]. While severely cracking down on serious dishonest behaviors, it has helped "disabled" persons who have no property to be executed, and helped "honest but unfortunate" persons subject to enforcement to get out of debt and return to normal life. Courts across the country insist on serving the overall situation and serving the people, actively applying the grace period system for dishonest punishment and credit repair measures, helping the economic regeneration of persons subject to enforcement who are working hard to repay their debts, and the overall dishonest punishment work presents a good trend of "reducing the number of existing cases and curbing the increase, and treating both the symptoms and the root causes". In 2024, 2.457 million people were newly included in the list of dishonest persons subject to enforcement by courts across the country, a year-on-year decrease of 23.4%; 2.821 million people returned to the market through credit repair, a year-on-year increase of 35.4%, and the number of people on the list of dishonest persons subject to enforcement decreased for the first time in ten years. It not only protects the legitimate rights and interests of the winning parties, but also creates conditions for the "regeneration" of market entities with development potential, further boosts the confidence of market entities, effectively eases social contradictions, and contributes judicial power to promoting the optimization of the rule of law business environment and maintaining harmonious and stable social development.

Practice has proved that the system of punishment for dishonesty is an important measure to promote the development of execution work, and has played a very important role in effectively combating malicious debt evasion, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the winning parties, and promoting the resolution of enforcement difficulties. In recent years, the Supreme People's Court has established and improved the list system of dishonest persons subject to execution based on the construction of a linkage mechanism for dishonest punishment, unblocked credit information sharing channels, and improved the level of information construction of dishonest punishment. Through measures such as formulating judicial interpretations, strengthening joint punishment, and publishing typical cases, it has cracked down on serious dishonest behaviors such as evasion of execution, evasion of execution, and resistance to execution, and has effectively protected the legitimate rights and interests of the winning parties. Since the implementation of the list of dishonest persons subject to enforcement in October 2013, as of June 30, 2025, a total of 17.1 million people have consciously and proactively fulfilled the obligations determined by the effective legal documents or negotiated with the applicant for enforcement under the pressure of credit punishment and consumption restriction. At present, the problems of persons subject to enforcement evading, escaping and resisting enforcement are still prominent. The people's courts still need to continue to increase enforcement efforts. For persons subject to enforcement with malicious dishonesty, the punishment for dishonesty/untrutworthiness should continue to be strengthened, and the legitimate rights and interests of the winning parties should be promptly guaranteed.

In order to strengthen the distinction between "untrustworthiness" [dishonesty] and "impairment" [inability], continuously improve the targeting, accuracy and convenience of dishonest punishment, guide local people's courts to strictly regulate and fairly apply the dishonest punishment system, focus credit punishment on a small number of behaviors of evading, escaping and resisting enforcement, and achieve the unity of performing duties in accordance with the law and serving the overall situation and promoting development, the Supreme People's Court selected and released nine typical cases of strictly distinguishing dishonest and impaired persons subject to enforcement and strengthening credit repair. The typical cases released this time have the following characteristics:

1. Strictly distinguish between "untrustworthiness" [dishonesty]" and "impairment" [inability]. The people's courts strictly follow the conditions and procedures stipulated by the law and judicial interpretation to take measures to include the dishonest debtors in the list. When examining whether to include the debtor in the list of dishonest debtors, they analyze the specific circumstances of the case, verify the reasons for the debtor's failure to perform his obligations, and comprehensively judge whether the debtor is in a dishonest situation such as "having the ability to perform but refusing to perform the obligations determined by the effective legal documents" and "refusing to perform the execution and settlement agreement without legitimate reasons". For the debtor who fails to perform his obligations, they fully consider whether he is disabled, eliminate mechanical law enforcement and simple and extensive law enforcement that do not distinguish the actual situation, and avoid including the debtor who is "disabled" but has no "dishonest" behavior in the list of dishonest debtors. In the execution case of Jiang Mouzhong et al. and Li Mou's motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute, the people's court found that the debtor actively performed his obligations, but because of his difficult life, he was in a "disabled" situation with no ability to perform objectively. Through execution and settlement and judicial assistance, the case was finally closed, taking into account the "strength" and "temperature" of execution.

2. To help "impaired" people who have no property to be executed. For the debtors who have development prospects but are temporarily in difficulty, the people's courts actively apply the grace period system for punishment of dishonesty, and grant the debtors a grace period of one to three months according to the actual situation of the case. While protecting the rights and interests of the winning parties in accordance with the law, the impact on the legitimate rights and interests of the debtors is minimized. The debtors eventually change from refusing to perform to reaching an execution settlement with the applicant for execution and actively performing. In the execution cases of sales contract disputes between Jiangxi Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Automobile Co., Ltd., the execution cases of lease contract disputes between Fujian Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. and Longyan Technology Co., Ltd., the execution cases of loan contract disputes between Yu and Changchun Property Company, and the execution cases of contract disputes between Beijing Construction Group Co., Ltd. and Beijing Construction Group Co., Ltd., the people's courts fully considered the actual difficulties faced by the subjects of execution, and adopted measures such as "live sealing and live buckling" and granting grace periods for dishonest punishment, which not only allowed the subjects of execution who were in a liquidity crisis to continue production and operation, but also protected the rights and interests of the applicants for execution in the cases involved to the greatest extent, and let the warmth of the execution measures awaken the instinct of more subjects to abide by the rules and achieve win-win, multi-win and win-win results.

3. Resolutely punish malicious dishonest/untrustworthy behavior. In practice, some persons subject to enforcement deliberately conceal their whereabouts and their whereabouts are unknown; some companies have closed down, while the original business owners have registered another company to continue the original business; some legal representatives of enterprises have changed their nearly 90-year-old mothers to legal representatives in order to evade responsibility; some continue to spend lavishly and live a life of extravagance and debauchery; some openly and wantonly resist or even use violence to resist enforcement. These malicious acts of dishonesty have seriously disrupted the normal market economic order and damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the winning parties. The people's courts insist on increasing the crackdown on such serious acts of dishonesty. In the case of enforcement of a private loan dispute between Chen and Di, Di applied for the lifting of the "inclusion in the list of dishonest persons subject to enforcement" and "consumption restriction" measures on the grounds that he had cancer and needed to go to Beijing and other places for treatment from time to time. The enforcement court temporarily lifted the measures in accordance with the law, but the person subject to enforcement took advantage of the temporary lifting of the "inclusion in the list of dishonest persons subject to enforcement" and "consumption restriction" measures and went to Hong Kong, Macau and other places for consumption and gambling many times. After the enforcement court discovered this, it transferred relevant clues, and the public security organs immediately controlled him and held him criminally responsible for his refusal to enforce the law.

People's Courts strictly distinguish between dishonest and disabled persons subject to enforcement 

Typical cases of strengthening credit repair 

 

Case 1: Enforcement of private loan dispute between Chen and Di 

——Applying for the removal of dishonest punishment measures in the name of medical treatment but actually going to Australia to gamble, and being prosecuted for refusing to execute in accordance with the law 

 

Case 2: A certain technology company in Jiangxi Limited Company and Shanghai Automobile Co., Ltd., Shanghai Technology Co., Ltd. Sales Contract Dispute Execution Case 

——Suspend the adoption of dishonest punishment measures to help high-tech enterprises grow healthily 

 

Case 3: Jiang Mouzhong, Jiang Mouping, Jiang Mouguo and Li Mou Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Dispute Execution Case 

——Accurately identify disability situations and coordinate multiple parties to resolve cases involving people's livelihood 

 

Case 4: Fujian Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. and Longyan Technology Co., Ltd. Lease Contract Dispute Execution Case 

——Make good use of dishonest punishment grace period to turn "forced vacating" into "win-win renewal"