[Direct answer]Yes. When the property of the person subject to enforcement is insufficient to pay off the debt, the applicant for enforcement may, in accordance with the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Change and Addition of Parties in Civil Enforcement" (Fa Shi [2016] No. 21, implemented on December 1, 2016), apply to the enforcement court to add a third party as the person subject to enforcement. This is commonly seen in situations such as shareholders failing to pay their contributions, withdrawing their contributions, and the property of a sole-proprietor company being mixed with others. The addition is reviewed and ruled by the collegial panel of the enforcement court. If dissatisfied, an enforcement objection lawsuit can be filed. The addition does not take effect automatically. The key lies in the evidence.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

Obtaining a judgment in favor of the plaintiff but failing to collect the money is a typical dilemma in cases where the defendant has no assets. Common situations include: the company has already ceased operations and the account balance is negligible; the shareholders' subscribed capital is not paid on time, or the funds are transferred away shortly after the capital verification; the funds of a sole proprietorship company are mixed with the shareholder's personal account; the enterprise is deregistered without liquidation and the assets are transferred to related parties. The rejection of the application for additional execution does not mean the end of the process.

II. Key points of contention

First, proof of statutory circumstances. The addition must fall within the circumstances enumerated in the judicial interpretation, such as withdrawing capital, asset mixing, and accepting property without compensation, all of which require evidence such as industrial and commercial archives, capital verification records, and bank transaction records to support them. Second, procedural selection. The application for addition is reviewed and ruled on by the collegial panel of the executing court. If it is rejected, an action for execution objection may be initiated, and the case will be substantively reviewed by the trial department. Third, burden of proof. In the case of a single-person company, the shareholder needs to prove that the company's assets are independent of personal assets, otherwise he/she will bear adverse consequences. Fourth, scope of liability. Shareholders who withdraw capital generally bear supplementary compensation liability within the scope of the withdrawal, and shareholders who engage in asset mixing may bear joint and several liability.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

In an execution objection lawsuit handled by Henglue Law Firm, the client had a creditor's right of 617,477.79 yuan and interest against a certain company as determined by the effective judgment. However, only 774 yuan was deducted in the execution process, and the remaining amount was deemed unenforceable due to the lack of assets available for execution, resulting in the termination of the execution process in November 2024. Previously, the application to add shareholder Liu Jie as a defendant was rejected, so the client subsequently entrusted Beijing Henglue Law Firm to handle the case.Wang FangliThe lawyer filed a lawsuit challenging the enforcement. The lawyer collected evidence from two aspects: first, the use of the investment. When the company was established, the registered capital was 10 million yuan. The verification funds were deposited into the account about 20 days after the company's establishment, but were then transferred out and the account was cancelled. Subsequently, the funds were transferred to related enterprises without any repayment records. Second, the funds were commingled. The company transferred money to the shareholders' personal accounts multiple times. The court determined that the withdrawal of the investment and the commingling of personal and corporate assets were established, and ruled that Liu Jie should be added as a defendant in the enforcement case and bear joint and several liability for the company's debts. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Wang FangliThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201911086939, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

According to Articles 18 to 20 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Change and Addition of Parties in Civil Enforcement" (Law Interpretation [2016] No. 21, implemented on December 1, 2016), if a shareholder fails to pay or withdraws his investment, or if a sole-proprietor company's shareholder cannot prove the independence of the company's property, the shareholder may be added as an enforcement target; Article 12 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (III)" (amended in 2020) stipulates the identification of withdrawing investment. Suggestions: First, retrieve the industrial and commercial archives, capital verification materials, and bank statements to confirm whether the investment has been actually paid; Second, verify whether the company is a sole-proprietor company and determine the allocation of the burden of proof; Third, promptly file an enforcement objection lawsuit after the request to add the party is rejected, and the evidence collection experience can be referred to for reference.Business and contract disputes in enterprises.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

Adding a defendant is an important path to enforce a valid judgment, but not all cases involving no property can be added. After receiving a ruling rejecting the addition, the plaintiff should file a lawsuit within the statutory time limit. Failure to do so will result in the loss of the remedy of filing a lawsuit against the enforcement objection. Even if the addition is successful, it is still necessary to conduct property investigation and control to avoid falling into a second dilemma.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementOur experience shows that in handling such cases in the Beijing area, the earlier the responsible parties and property clues are identified, the greater the chances of successfully recovering the funds.Beijing Henglue Law FirmIt is recommended to conduct a comprehensive check before initiating the additional process.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can I get support if I apply to add an additional person to be executed against?

It depends on whether the statutory circumstances can be proven. If there is sufficient evidence such as capital flight and the mixing of the assets of a sole proprietorship company, the possibility of success is higher; if the application for adding a defendant is based solely on the company's lack of assets, it is difficult to gain support.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare?

Business registration files, company charters and shareholder registers, capital verification and actual payment certificates, bank transaction records and abnormal transfer records, final repayment rulings, and financial transaction records between the company and its shareholders.

Q3: How much does it cost?

The additional application itself is not charged separately; for the lawsuit against the enforcement objection, the case acceptance fee shall be paid in accordance with the amount of the subject matter, and the attorney's fee shall be determined in accordance with the entrustment contract.

Q4: Approximately how long will it take?

The additional application is reviewed by the collegial panel, and a ruling is generally made within a few months after the case is filed. The lawsuit against the enforcement objection is usually concluded within six months in the first instance, and the overall handling of the follow-up matters often takes more than half a year.

Q5: What should I do first?

First, check the industrial and commercial archives and the materials of capital verification to verify whether the shareholders' contributions have been made in full. Then decide whether to directly apply for an increase or prepare to file a lawsuit against the execution of the judgment.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media outlets, and are not related to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case Number]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The Supreme People's Court has released a typical case of the People's Court punishing debt evasion and default (the case of Company C suing Company B, Cui * and Li * for objection to the execution of the additional debtor).
[Judicial Summary]Company B, Cui * and Li * jointly established Company A. Two days after the investment funds were transferred to the company's account, all of them were transferred to third parties. After the court enforced the payment of the outstanding debts owed by Company A, there were no assets available for enforcement. In accordance with Articles 18 and 19 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Modification and Addition of Parties in Civil Enforcement", the court determined that the three individuals' actions constituted the withdrawal of investment funds and ruled that they should bear supplementary compensation liabilities to the company's creditors within the limits of 8 million yuan, 1.539 million yuan and 461,000 yuan.
[Source]The official website of the Supreme People's Court (Typical Cases of the People's Court in Punishing Debt Evasion and Default) (2026)

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The Supreme People's Court has released typical cases involving wage arrears disputes
[Judicial Summary]A technology company had no property available for enforcement. The court checked the industrial and commercial archives and found that the company's registered capital was 5 million yuan, and the three shareholders' subscribed capital was due on December 31, 2050, with the actual paid-in capital amounting to 0 yuan. The enforcement court guided the applicant workers to apply for adding the shareholders as the respondents and explained the legal consequences of the accelerated maturity of the capital contribution obligation. After realizing that they should fulfill their obligation to make actual capital contributions, the shareholders immediately paid the workers 189,700 yuan, and the workers withdrew their application for adding the shareholders as respondents.
[Source]The official website of the Supreme People's Court (Punishing wage arrears according to law · Typical cases of disputes involving wage arrears) (2025)

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →\nLegal services for creditor-debtor disputes·Attorney Wang Fangli·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is provided 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. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.