联合惩戒！广州法院与市场监管局联手治理恶意注销

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the collaboration between the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court and the Guangzhou Market Supervision Administration to combat malicious company deregistration practices that undermine market integrity and judicial order [1][2]. Group 1: Malicious Deregistration Trends - In the past three years, Guangzhou courts have handled 390 cases related to company deregistration, with an average annual growth of 40.3%, and some grassroots courts experiencing a growth rate of 65% [2]. - A significant 82.3% of companies chose to deregister during the first instance of litigation, while 14.1% did so during the enforcement stage [2]. - These actions have led to 22% of cases being prolonged due to the inability to deliver documents to parties, 6.3% resulting in procedural stagnation, and 14.4% being unexecutable due to the disappearance of the subject, indicating a systemic risk to judicial order and social credit [2]. Group 2: Governance Mechanisms - The collaboration has established a comprehensive governance system consisting of "front-end prevention + mid-end detection + end punishment" to address malicious deregistration [3][4]. - The "front-end prevention" mechanism includes legal notifications and legal education to minimize the entry of malicious deregistration into litigation [3]. - A dual mechanism of "information sharing + collaborative investigation + mutual notification" has been set up to address potential malicious deregistration cases [3]. Group 3: Enforcement and Accountability - For already executed malicious deregistrations, a three-tiered mechanism of "administrative revocation + judicial accountability + credit punishment" has been established [4]. - The market supervision department can revoke deregistration, impose fines, and list companies as seriously untrustworthy, while courts can impose fines or detention for obstructing litigation [4]. - The collaboration aims to create a social governance framework that ensures accountability for malicious deregistration and enhances the integrity of the market [6][9]. Group 4: Case Studies - A furniture company attempted to evade debt by submitting false documents for deregistration just before a court ruling, resulting in the inability to enforce the judgment [5][6]. - In another case, shareholders conspired to delay litigation by applying for deregistration, leading to penalties for all involved shareholders, reinforcing the principle of shared responsibility among shareholders [7][9].