Recently, the Supreme Court issued the "Several Provisions on Property Penalty Enforcement", which will take effect on June 1st this year. Compared with the currently applicable "Supreme People's Court Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Property Penalties", the new provisions clarify and standardize the issues encountered in property penalty enforcement in recent years.
In judicial practice, principal penalties are often emphasized while supplementary penalties are neglected, making property penalty enforcement optional. According to incomplete statistics, the enforcement rate of property penalties is less than half, and the timely and accurate enforcement of criminal judgments cannot be guaranteed.
Comparing the two judicial interpretations, the new interpretation proposes solutions to problems existing in reality. First, it clarifies how and when to initiate property penalty enforcement. Article 2 of the new interpretation explicitly provides that the people's court of first instance shall file for enforcement of legal documents concerning property penalty enforcement after the criminal judgment or order made by this court becomes effective, or after receiving the effective criminal judgment or order from a higher people's court. The court of first instance shall file for enforcement immediately after the judgment becomes effective, whereas the original interpretation had no such provision.
Second, it clarifies the court and specific department responsible for property penalty enforcement. Article 10 of the original interpretation provides that property penalties shall be enforced by the people's court of first instance; if the offender's property is located in another jurisdiction, the people's court of first instance may entrust the people's court at the location of the property to enforce on its behalf. In judicial practice, enforcement has been carried out by the enforcement bureau, criminal trial division, paramilitary police team, or through mixed enforcement, and there were no provisions on which level of court to entrust for enforcement in another jurisdiction. The new interpretation further clarifies on the basis of the original interpretation that Article 1 provides that property penalties shall be enforced by the institution responsible for trial enforcement within the people's court of first instance; if the property subject to enforcement is located in another jurisdiction, the people's court of first instance may entrust the people's court at the same level in the location of the property to enforce on its behalf.
Third, it clarifies the enforcement period for property confiscation in property penalties. The original interpretation had no provision on this, and Article 3, paragraph 2 of the new interpretation provides that for enforcement of property confiscation, the people's court shall enforce it immediately. In other words, if the judgment is property confiscation, there is no period issue; it shall be enforced immediately once the judgment becomes effective.
Additionally, in property penalty enforcement, there are situations such as unpaid fines and no property available for confiscation, especially property transfers that bring great difficulties to enforcement. I believe we can draw on effective methods currently used in enforcement work to strengthen the intensity and strength of property penalty enforcement, ensuring the fulfillment of judgments while maintaining the authority of the law.