On May 27th, Daqing Evening News reported that the female boss of Ranghulu No.1 Master owed more than 200,000 yuan to 32 migrant workers. In order to avoid debt, she first changed the company and equity registered under a pseudonym to her sister's name. After my sister was detained, she changed her equity to her own name, the legal person to her own mother, and the female boss gave her a value of 6.5438+0.5 million yuan.
After the report was published, it aroused strong repercussions among readers. Dozens of phone calls were made to our hotline, accusing the female boss of her behavior. At the same time, many readers have questioned: What exactly is "refusing to commit a crime"? What kind of behavior constitutes "refusing to commit a crime"? On June 2nd, after the judgment of this case was issued, our reporter interviewed the presiding judge and defense lawyer of this case, read relevant materials, and got a deep understanding of the crime of refusing to execute.
Master's boss "has a way" to pay back wages
Dong and other 32 people worked in an engineering technology company in Daqing two years ago and never got the labor fee. Bai Chunyan (pseudonym) paid 32 employees a total of RMB 6,543,800+0.8 million after the arbitration award by the Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission of High-tech Zone. Bai Chunyan did not raise any objection to this award and failed to perform it. In March 2004, 32 people, including Dong Mou, came to the ranghulu district court to apply for compulsory execution. After the court delivered the notice of enforcement ruling to the company, Bai Chunyan, who has a master's degree, racked his brains and tried every means to "fight" enforcement in order to avoid legal obligations.
First, transfer the company under the name of Bai Yan (Beijing ID card) and the equity of RMB 6 million to Bai (a pseudonym). Later, during the period when Bai was legally detained 15, the company held another shareholders' meeting. Bai transferred the equity of 6.4 million yuan to his sister and changed the legal representative to (a pseudonym). Since the legal person has changed, Bai can no longer be detained, so she is no longer detained. Because no other property could be found in this case, the implementation was once deadlocked.
After careful investigation, the executors found that Bai Yan's Beijing identity card was forged when he registered. They found that Bai Yan was actually the same person, and Bai was his sister and his mother. Although the legal person of the company has changed, no one has left his home.
During this period, Bai Chunyan sold the factory building in Lin Yuan Development Zone at a price of 6,543,800 yuan+0.5 million yuan, but still refused to pay the execution money.
Let Hulu Court reach an agreement. Bai Chunyan changed the legal person several times in court execution to avoid execution. Every time he came to the court as an agent, he lied to the court by saying that he was Bai Yan's cousin. Moreover, after the sale of the property, she still concealed the truth from the court, and her behavior has been suspected of refusing to execute the crime. As the person directly responsible, Bai Chunyan should bear the responsibility. On February 2, 2004, 65438, let Hulu court decide to transfer the suspected part of the case to public security organs for investigation. On June 65438+1October 2 1 this year, the public security organs arrested Bai Chunyan in Beijing. On April 30th, ranghulu district Procuratorate submitted an indictment to the Ranghulu Court. At 9: 00 am on May 26th, the ranghulu district court held a public hearing to hear the case.
He was sentenced to six months in prison for being smart.
Bai Chunyan's agent, Dolly, a lawyer of Daqing Office of Far East Law Group, said that he believed that the charges charged in the indictment were established, but according to the law, he was given a lighter punishment. Bai Chunyan's relatives have paid more than 200,000 yuan to the court, so that all 32 people have received their due wages. Although the defendant did not obey the court summons and acted irrationally, the defendant only passively refused to execute the judgment or ruling, and the circumstances of resisting execution were minor.
The court held through trial that the charges charged by the public prosecution agency were established. Defendant Bai Chunyan was awarded an arbitration award by the Labor Dispute Arbitration Committee of High-tech Zone for defaulting on the wages of 32 employees including Dong Mou. After the ruling became legally effective, the defendant failed to perform it, and 32 people, including Dong Mou, applied to the Concession District Court for enforcement. During this period, the defendant sold the factory to Zhang at a price of 6.5438+0.5 million yuan, and changed the legal person of a company in Daqing twice.
After the court's enforcement ruling was served, Bai Chunyan, the defendant, resorted to fraudulent means, claiming that he and Bai Yan were not the same person. However, the testimony of witnesses such as Dong, documentary evidence such as ID card and Bai Chunyan's original confession all prove that Bai Yan and Bai Chunyan are the same person. Since then, Bai Chunyan's whereabouts have been unknown. It can be seen that Bai Chunyan's refusal to execute the legally effective ruling of the people's court, if the circumstances are serious, has constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. Considering that he can repay the employee's salary of more than 200,000 yuan after the incident, he can be given a lighter punishment when sentencing. Some of his excuses are inconsistent with the facts and cannot be supported. The defender's opinion conforms to the case and is adopted. The opinion of the public prosecution agency on the application of the law is correct and supported. In order to maintain judicial order, protect the authority of the people's courts from infringement and crack down on such crimes, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, our court convicted Bai Chunyan of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.
The judge explained in detail "refusing to plead guilty"
Jia Sijun, the presiding judge of this case, introduced in detail the crime of refusing to execute, the elements that constitute the crime of refusing to execute, the object of the crime and the subjective and objective aspects of the crime.
Judge Jia said that the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling refers to the act of refusing to execute a legally effective judgment or ruling of the people's court and the circumstances are serious. To safeguard the authority of the people's court is to safeguard the authority of the law. However, for a long time, the phenomenon of non-repayment of debts in economic life has been more prominent. Some debtors are able to repay their debts, but refuse to pay them. Even after the people's court makes a judgment or ruling, it still refuses to perform the obligations determined by the court's judgment or ruling, which seriously hinders the judicial order, damages the legitimate rights and interests of creditors and disrupts the healthy development of the socialist market economy.
The constitutive elements of the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling are: the object of infringement is the authority of the people's court. As the judicial organ of the country, the judgments and rulings of the people's courts are a form of exercising judicial power on behalf of the country and a symbol of the power of the socialist country. The object of this crime is the legally effective judgment or ruling of the people's court, that is, the legally effective judgment or ruling made by the people's court according to law. The so-called legally effective judgments and orders, once they take effect, are legally effective, and the relevant units and individuals must resolutely implement them. On August 29th, 2002, the 29th session of the 9th the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) passed the Interpretation of Article 313th of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), which helped the people's courts to correctly understand and implement the criminal law, and increased the punishment for refusing to execute judgments and rulings in legislation.
The objective aspect of this crime is the refusal to execute the legally effective judgment or ruling of the people's court, which is capable of execution and the circumstances are serious. According to the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC)'s legislative interpretation, the rulings made by the people's court to execute payment orders, effective conciliation statements, arbitration awards and notarized creditor's rights documents also belong to the people's court rulings stipulated in Article 313 of the Criminal Law.
According to the legislative interpretation, the so-called "refusal to execute under serious circumstances" refers to an act that has one of the following circumstances: the person subjected to execution conceals, transfers, intentionally destroys property or transfers property for free, or transfers property at an obviously unreasonable low price, which makes the judgment or ruling impossible to execute; The guarantor or the person subjected to execution conceals, transfers, intentionally damages or transfers the property that has provided a guarantee to the people's court, so that the judgment or ruling cannot be executed; After receiving the notice from the people's court for assistance in execution, the obligor for assistance in execution refuses to assist in execution, which makes the judgment or ruling impossible to execute; The person subjected to execution, the guarantor and the obligor assisting in execution collude with the functionaries of state organs and use their powers to obstruct the execution, thus making the judgment or ruling unenforceable; Other circumstances in which he refuses to execute if he has the ability to execute it, and the circumstances are serious.
The subject of crime is a special subject, that is, the person who has the obligation to execute the judgment and ruling of the people's court. In practice, it is mainly the losing party or the third party and the person subjected to execution who have the obligation to assist the people's court in executing the judgment. If he alone uses violence or threats to obstruct execution, it should constitute a crime of obstructing official duties; If he and the person subjected to execution jointly commit acts that hinder the execution of the court judgment, it may constitute a crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.
Subjective aspect consists of intention, which is direct intention. That is, the actor knows that his behavior will cause the result of hindering the normal execution of the court judgment or making the court judgment impossible to execute, and hopes that this result will happen.
The motives of the actor are various, such as evading the obligations determined by the judgment or having resistance to the court judgment. , but the motive does not affect the establishment of this crime.
According to the law, refusing to execute the court's judgment or ruling must reach the level of "serious circumstances" before it constitutes a crime.
The crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling must be a serious act, because refusing to execute a court judgment or ruling but the circumstances are minor cannot be regarded as a crime; The crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling must be an act that the actor has the ability to execute and refuses to execute. Therefore, if the perpetrator does not execute because he cannot execute it, it cannot be punished as a crime.