[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, one is a criminal offense, and the other is a judicial punishment, with different degrees of severity. Article 313 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a person is capable of executing a judgment or ruling of the people's court but refuses to do so, and the circumstances are serious, they shall be guilty of the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings, and may be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or a fine; if the circumstances are particularly serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a person obstructs the enforcement of a civil judgment, the people's court may impose a fine or detain them according to the seriousness of the circumstances, and if the circumstances constitute a crime, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law. Therefore, obstructing enforcement is a broader range of illegal situations, and the crime of refusing to enforce judgments is the most serious and criminally punishable part of it.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

During the execution process, when the debtor or a third party resists enforcement, conceals assets, tears up seals, or obstructs the seizure and attachment of property, the creditor often hopes to "directly sentence them to prison", but is often told to "impose a fine and detain them first". How to distinguish between the crime of refusing to execute judgments and the crime of obstructing enforcement, and when does it escalate to a crime? These are often confused issues in the process of protecting rights during enforcement, and they also affect the choice of remedial pathways.

II. Key points of dispute

The controversy focuses on the following aspects: first, the different subjects (the person subject to enforcement/the person assisting in enforcement/third parties); second, the different objects and methods of the act; third, the threshold for criminalization (having the ability to enforce, refusing to enforce, and serious circumstances); and fourth, the connection between judicial punishment and criminal responsibility. The judicial tendency is to take compulsory measures such as fines and detention against those who generally obstruct enforcement, and to investigate criminal responsibility for those who refuse to enforce and meet the standard of serious circumstances, forming a graded responsibility system.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first layer concerns the nature of responsibility: Obstructing enforcement is an illegal act, which is subject to judicial penalties (fines, detention) or inclusion in compulsory enforcement; the crime of refusing enforcement is a criminal offense, which must meet the constituting elements stipulated in the Criminal Law and carries more severe consequences. The second layer focuses on the differences in subjects: The crime of refusing enforcement primarily targets individuals with enforcement obligations, such as debtors; while the scope of obstructing enforcement is broader, including refusal by assisting parties to cooperate and interference by third parties in seizure and attachment. The third layer addresses the threshold for criminalization: The crime of refusing enforcement requires "the ability to perform but refusing to do so with serious circumstances," with typical cases including hiding or transferring assets, making false declarations, violating high-spending restrictions, and evading enforcement through false litigation. General delays and verbal resistance are typically handled as obstructing enforcement first. The fourth layer concerns procedural coordination: For those obstructing enforcement, the court may impose fines or detention based on the circumstances; if a crime of refusing enforcement is suspected, the case is transferred to the public security organ for filing. If the public security organ refuses to file charges or the prosecutor declines to prosecute, the applicant may initiate a private prosecution. The fifth layer addresses practical responses: When creditors encounter resistance to enforcement, they should first secure evidence (video, documentary evidence, and service records) and apply to the court for enforcement measures. In severe cases, they should push for referral for prosecution. When handling enforcement and debt cases, our firm has successfully identified shareholders' unpaid contributions and asserted supplementary compensation liability for unpaid shareholders within the scope of their unpaid contributions, helping creditors overcome enforcement obstacles. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Yuan HangAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202110286151, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting as an agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to distinguish the nature of the behavior and determine whether it constitutes obstruction of enforcement or may constitute the crime of refusing to enforce judgments. The second step is to fix the evidence of resistance to enforcement and concealment of property. The third step is to apply to the court for punitive measures such as fines and detention against those who obstruct enforcement. The fourth step is to promote the transfer of cases for prosecution or initiate private prosecutions in accordance with the law when the circumstances are serious. The main legal basis: Article 313 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (Crime of Refusing to Enforce Judgments and Orders), the provisions on compulsory measures and enforcement against obstruction of civil litigation in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Refusing to Enforce Judgments and Orders; the relevant provisions shall be based on the currently effective version, and the specific application shall be based on the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

There are three key points regarding refusal to execute and obstruction of enforcement: obstruction of enforcement is an illegal act punishable by fines and detention, while refusal to execute is a crime punishable by imprisonment; the dividing line lies in whether the person has the ability to execute but refuses to do so, and the circumstances must be serious; when encountering resistance, first collect evidence, then ask the court to handle the matter, and if necessary, refer the case for prosecution. Cases involving enforcement and refusal to execute can be resolved through legal channels.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementThe service provides a comprehensive solution, and cases involving criminal prosecution can be handled in conjunction with it.Criminal defense and criminal case filingFor plates involving corporate debt, you can refer to the following information for reference.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor any difficulties in execution, you can consult the column for assistanceSpecial servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Are the crimes of refusing to execute the judgment and obstructing the execution the same thing?

No. Obstructing enforcement is an illegal act, and the offender may be fined or detained; refusing to enforce the judgment is a criminal offense, and the offender must meet the requirements of being able to enforce the judgment but refusing to do so, and the circumstances must be serious.

Q2: What evidence is needed to deal with resistance to enforcement?

Videos of resisting behavior, documentary evidence, clues of property concealment and transfer, execution notices and service records, proof that the person subject to enforcement has the ability to perform his obligations, and materials on the process of interference by third parties.

Q3: Are the fees for such transactions high?

Generally, there is no additional application fee for the execution process, and criminal prosecutions are handled in accordance with the relevant procedures; the attorney's agency fees are related to the workload of the investigation and the process.

Q4: How long does it take from handling the case to holding those responsible accountable?

The fines and detentions are imposed by the court in a timely manner, and the transfer of cases for investigation and trial usually takes several months to a year. Corresponding procedures are applied to cases initiated by private prosecution.

Q5: Will a third party be held liable if they interfere with the execution of the judgment?

Yes. If a third party interferes with the execution measures such as seizure, attachment, and freezing, the court may punish them according to law; if the circumstances are serious and constitute a crime, they may also be held criminally responsible.

The above Q&A is mainly based on judicial practices in the Beijing area. There may be differences in the interpretation of judgments in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence, to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Legal services for creditor-debtor disputes·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.