After receiving a notice of compulsory execution from the court, the man went through divorce procedures with his wife in order to transfer his property, and resisted the execution of the court's judgment. Both husband and wife were sentenced! On January 20th, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate jointly released five typical cases of refusing to execute judgments and rulings, further clarifying the understanding and application of relevant laws, and conveying a firm attitude of zero tolerance towards refusing to execute judgments and rulings to the society. The reporter noticed that in Case Three "Wang and Wang Refuse to Execute Judgments and Orders", the executed person was sentenced for transferring property through divorce agreement and resisting execution. The case shows that in the civil loan dispute between Li and Wang, the People's Court of Baodi District, Tianjin made a civil judgment in December 2019, ordering the defendant Wang to repay Li's loan of 500000 yuan and interest of 40000 yuan. After the judgment came into effect, Wang failed to fulfill his obligations within the time limit determined by the judgment. Li applied for compulsory enforcement to the Baodi District Court in January 2020. During the execution process, the court forcibly extracted 25158 yuan of the execution funds that Wang, the debtor, was entitled to in another execution case, and forcibly deducted 1240 yuan from Wang's account deposit. A total of 26398 yuan was executed, and no other property available for execution was found. After investigation by the court, it was found that the person subject to enforcement, Wang, received a notice of compulsory enforcement in January 2020 and discussed with his wife Wang to plan the transfer of property. Wang knew that Wang was subject to compulsory enforcement and, in order to resist enforcement, still went through divorce procedures with Wang the next day, agreeing to transfer all property to Wang and bear all debts. In June 2021, Wang was detained for 15 days by the Baodi District People's Court for refusing to fulfill the obligations determined by effective legal documents. Afterwards, the court also found that Wang used the money for gambling during the compulsory execution process. The above-mentioned evasion of legal obligations and confrontation with execution by Wang and Wang have resulted in the court's judgment being unable to be enforced for a long time. The Baodi District Court in Tianjin has transferred the clues of Wang and Wang's suspected refusal to execute judgments and rulings to the Baodi Branch of the Tianjin Public Security Bureau for investigation. Wang was criminally detained on November 3, 2021 on suspicion of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling, and was released on bail pending trial on November 16 of the same year. Wang was released on bail pending trial in August 2022 on suspicion of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling. During Wang's criminal detention, his family voluntarily paid the loan amount determined by the judgment and the debt interest during the delayed performance period to the applicant Li in November 2021. At the same time, Li issued a letter of understanding to Wang and Wang. In August 2022, after being prosecuted by the People's Procuratorate of Baodi District, the court tried the case in accordance with the law and sentenced Wang and Wang to five months of detention and six months of probation respectively for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling; Wang was sentenced to three months of detention and six months of probation. The "two highs" stated that after receiving the execution notice from the court, the person subject to enforcement in this case not only did not consider fulfilling their legal obligations in accordance with the law, but also conspired with their wife to transfer all their property under their name to her name through an agreement divorce, resisting the court's enforcement. His and his wife's disregard for the law and resistance to enforcement not only infringes upon the rights and interests of the applicant for enforcement, but also provokes judicial authority, constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments and rulings in accordance with the law. This case legally safeguards the legitimate rights of the applicant for enforcement, demonstrates judicial credibility, and has good educational guidance significance. (New Society)