严格规范公正适用失信惩戒制度，是推动解决"执行难"问题的重要举措。如何持续提升失信惩戒工作的 靶向性、精准度和便捷性，把信用惩戒聚焦到少数规避执行、逃避执行、抗拒执行行为上来？近日，记 者对上海、江西等地法院做法进行采访。 ——编 者 到底是"有钱不还"还是"没钱还不了"？ 这是法院受理"申请强制执行"案件后，首先要甄别、判断的问题。这关系惩戒措施的精准适用、当事人 合法权益的平等保护。如果"有能力还"却拒不履行法院裁判文书义务，将被列入失信被执行人名单。 数据来源：最高人民法院 《中共中央关于制定国民经济和社会发展第十五个五年规划的建议》提出，健全国家执行体制，有效解 决"执行难"问题。 "严格区分'失信'与'失能'，分别采取有针对性举措，成为最高法强调的执行要点，既严厉打击严重失信 行为，又为有发展潜能的经营主体纾困解绑，帮助'诚实而不幸'的被执行人走出困局、重返市场。"最 高人民法院执行局局长黄文俊介绍，2024年以来，最高法指导全国法院开展"失信"与"失能"分类管理相 关工作，强化失信惩戒分级管理，要求积极适用失信惩戒宽限期制度和信用修复措施，提升惩戒精准 度、帮助努力偿债的被执行人继续正常经营企业。 ...

Core Insights - The implementation of the dishonesty enforcement list system since October 2013 has led to 17.1 million individuals voluntarily fulfilling their legal obligations or reaching settlement agreements by June 30, 2025, due to credit sanctions and consumption restrictions [1] - The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between "dishonesty" and "inability" in enforcement cases, aiming to protect the rights of honest but unfortunate individuals while cracking down on malicious debt evasion [2] Group 1 - The dishonesty punishment system has effectively curbed malicious debt evasion and protected the legal rights of winning parties [1] - In 2024, 2.457 million new individuals were added to the dishonesty enforcement list, a year-on-year decrease of 23.4%, while 2.821 million individuals restored their credit status, a year-on-year increase of 35.4%, marking the first decline in the number of individuals on the dishonesty list in a decade [1] - The Supreme Court is guiding courts nationwide to implement classification management of "dishonesty" and "inability" to better serve economic and social development [1] Group 2 - The Supreme Court stresses the need for careful verification of the reasons behind non-compliance before adding individuals to the dishonesty list, to avoid misclassifying those who are unable to fulfill obligations due to genuine circumstances [2] - Courts are encouraged to apply a grace period of one to three months for individuals with development potential but facing temporary difficulties, balancing the rights of winning parties with the legitimate rights of the debtors [2] - Malicious behaviors such as hiding whereabouts, continuing business under different names, and extravagant spending despite being on the dishonesty list are highlighted as serious disruptions to market order, warranting increased punitive measures [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released nine typical cases that strictly distinguish between dishonest and incapacitated individuals, aiming to strengthen credit restoration and guide local courts in the fair application of credit punishment systems [1] Group 1 - The focus of credit punishment is directed towards a minority of individuals who evade, escape, or resist enforcement actions [1] - The initiative aims to align legal duties with broader service goals and promote development [1]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court has emphasized the need to focus credit punishment on behaviors that evade, avoid, or resist execution, while distinguishing between "dishonest" and "unable" individuals [1][2] - Since the implementation of the dishonest person list system in October 2013, 17.1 million individuals have voluntarily fulfilled their legal obligations due to credit punishment and consumption restrictions [1] - In 2024, the number of new entries into the dishonest person list decreased by 23.4% to 2.457 million, while 2.821 million individuals returned to the market through credit repair, marking a 35.4% increase [2] Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has released nine typical cases to strengthen the classification of "dishonest" and "unable" individuals, aiming to enhance the precision and convenience of credit punishment [1] - The overall trend of credit punishment work is showing a positive pattern of "reducing existing cases and curbing new ones" [2] - Courts are required to strictly follow legal conditions and procedures when adding individuals to the dishonest person list, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of the reasons for non-fulfillment of obligations [2] Group 2 - A specific case highlighted the balance between enforcement and compassion, where a defendant was found to be unable to fulfill obligations due to life difficulties, leading to a resolution through judicial assistance [3]

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court has implemented a classification management system for "dishonest" and "unable" individuals, aiming to alleviate the debt burdens of those who are honest but unfortunate while cracking down on severe dishonest behaviors [1][2][3] - In 2024, the number of new entries into the dishonest debtor list decreased by 23.4% year-on-year, with 2.821 million individuals successfully rehabilitated through credit restoration measures, marking the first decline in a decade [1][2] - The court emphasizes a balanced approach, ensuring the protection of legitimate rights for winning parties while fostering an environment conducive to economic recovery for those with potential for development [1][2][3] Group 1 - The dishonest punishment system has proven effective in combating malicious debt evasion and maintaining the rights of winning parties [2] - Since the implementation of the dishonest debtor list system in October 2013, a total of 17.1 million individuals have voluntarily fulfilled their obligations due to credit punishment and consumption restrictions [2] - The courts are encouraged to continue strengthening the punishment of dishonest behaviors while ensuring the rights of winning parties are protected [2][3] Group 2 - The Supreme People's Court has released nine typical cases to illustrate the strict distinction between "dishonest" and "unable" individuals, focusing on the specific circumstances of each case [3] - Courts are required to consider the actual situations of debtors, avoiding mechanical enforcement that does not differentiate between "dishonest" and "unable" individuals [3][4] - The courts are adopting measures such as grace periods for those with potential for development, allowing them to recover while still protecting the rights of winning parties [4][5] Group 3 - Courts are intensifying efforts to punish malicious dishonest behaviors that disrupt market order and harm the rights of winning parties [5][6] - Specific cases highlight the courts' commitment to balancing enforcement with compassion, allowing for rehabilitation and resolution of disputes [6][8] - The courts are utilizing flexible enforcement strategies, such as grace periods and active communication, to facilitate debtors' recovery while ensuring compliance with legal obligations [8][9] Group 4 - The courts are exploring innovative approaches to enforcement, such as "active sealing" of assets, to support struggling businesses while ensuring creditors' rights are upheld [15][16] - Successful case resolutions demonstrate the effectiveness of tailored enforcement strategies that consider the unique circumstances of each debtor [16][17] - The courts are committed to fostering a harmonious social environment while promoting economic stability through effective enforcement practices [17][18]