Why the seized property cannot be sold  

Hefei, Anhui: Properly solve a series of civil enforcement cases

(Correspondent: Huang Li, Wang Chengyu)

"Under the impact of the epidemic, the business of supermarket tenants was sluggish, and it was difficult to collect the rent, but the person being executed, Mr. Cao, and the court enforcement personnel were still trying to ensure that the implementation was in place." On October 23, when the head of the Fifth Procuratorial Department of the Hefei Procuratorate went to the Lujiang County Procuratorate to investigate and ask about the progress of an implementation supervision case handled by the court, The introduction of the head of the civil procuratorial department of the court showed the effectiveness of case handling.

Cao is the person in charge of a private enterprise in Lujiang County. Due to the poor investment and management of the enterprise, many creditors have come to ask for accounts and filed lawsuits. From 2017 to July 2018, 97 private loan dispute cases entered the enforcement procedure after being heard and pronounced by the court, and the amount of the enforcement target reached more than 12 million yuan.

During the execution period, although the court took a variety of execution measures such as including the dishonest person to be executed, it only frozen the execution payment of more than 100000 yuan to Cao, which is far from the execution object. On September 28, 2017, the court sealed a supermarket property under Cao's name, but the auction process was delayed. During this period, Cao signed a lease agreement with Liu and other merchants without authorization, and rented the first and second floors of the supermarket property for six years at an annual rent of 2.95 million yuan. The rent of 1.75 million yuan paid by the merchant in advance was used for other purposes by Cao.

Although the court intervened and notified to recover the rent, Cao still failed to implement it, which further intensified the dissatisfaction of creditors.

At the beginning of July 2018, dozens of creditors came to the Lujiang County Procuratorate to appeal, saying that the court's delay in auctioning the sealed supermarket property was a lazy act of execution, and asked the procuratorial organ to intervene and supervise the court's execution of the sealed property. After accepting the case, the procuratorate immediately formed a case handling team to conduct examination and verification. After face-to-face communication with these creditors and contact with the executive judge, the prosecutor learned about the problems and difficulties in the implementation - Cao's debt is real. If the supermarket is auctioned, the creditors can get some compensation, but still can't recover their loaned principal, and Cao's remaining assets will also lose their hematopoietic function. If the case is properly handled, the supermarket still has the possibility of "coming back from the dead", which not only protects the rights and interests of tenants, but also further protects the interests of creditors by taking advantage of the rental income of the supermarket.

After careful study and judgment, the procuratorate believes that auctioning supermarket real estate is no less than taking drastic measures to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Creditors will find it more difficult to recover their own funds. The result of both defeats is not what both parties want to see. The main purpose of creditors to safeguard their rights through judicial means is to hope Cao can shoulder legal responsibility and return the funds they lent. In order to effectively safeguard the interests of enterprise subjects and creditors, the procuratorate, while patiently explaining and asking them to give understanding and support to the court's failure to start the auction process, also proposed to the court to continue to increase communication and coordination, strive to reach a comprehensive settlement agreement, and do a good job in implementing the procuratorial recommendations of security.

Under the supervision and support of the procuratorate, the court increased its enforcement efforts and transferred Cao to the public security organ for his suspected refusal to execute the judgment or ruling. Under the pressure of criminal investigation, Cao asked for cooperation in implementation. The procuratorate communicated with the court in a timely manner, and took this opportunity to actively coordinate. With the supermarket property rent as the source, more than 90 creditors reached an implementation settlement agreement with Mr. Cao for installment repayment. In order to ensure the smooth implementation of the later period, Cao's wife and children provided guarantees for the settlement agreement.

So far, the appeal of the applicant for enforcement in this series of cases has been basically realized, the contradiction has been resolved, and the supermarket has continued to operate.