Huang Yi, deputy to the National People's Congress: It is proposed to introduce detailed rules for the judicial disposal of property and property in criminal-civil cases

With the acceleration of China's economic restructuring and transformation, coupled with the huge impact on the real economy since the outbreak of the epidemic, the non-performing loans of banking financial institutions have risen. According to the data, as of the end of 2020, the balance of non-performing loans in China's banking industry was 3.5 trillion yuan, an increase of 281.6 billion yuan over the beginning of the year.

In the process of judicial collection of non-performing loans of financial institutions, the disposal of collateral and collateral of non-performing loans is the most common way to achieve judicial disposal, but there is a dilemma of difficult disposal at present.

Huang Yi, a deputy to the National People's Congress and president of Sichuan Tianfu Bank, told First Finance and Economics that financial institutions are usually mortgagees or pledgees in financial loan relationships, involving more economic disputes that need to enter the judicial disposal procedure, while most of the criminal and civil cross-border cases are suspended due to the deadlock in asset disposal, resulting in financial institutions bearing huge capital losses. He suggested that detailed rules be promulgated for the judicial disposition of property involved in criminal-civil cases.

According to the current laws and regulations, where the same natural person, legal person or unincorporated organization is involved in economic disputes and suspected economic crimes due to different legal facts, economic dispute cases and economic crime suspect cases shall be tried separately.

Huang Yi said that in view of the fact that in judicial practice, there are indeed a large number of non-performing loan enterprises or enterprise responsible persons who are suspected of criminal crimes and civil disputes, resulting in their assets involved in the case being first sealed and waiting to be sealed by the courts, public security, procuratorates and other judicial organs, the current law clearly stipulates that property and documents that have nothing to do with the case must not be sealed or seized; after it is found that the property and documents that are really unrelated to the case, those that have been sealed shall be lifted from sealing and seizure. Therefore, the premise that the property involved in the case can be unsealed is that the public security organ withdraws the case or terminates the investigation of the criminal suspect, the procuratorate withdraws the case or makes a decision not to prosecute, or the court makes an effective judgment or ruling that it should be returned.

For how to define "case-neutral"? At present, there are no clear legal provisions, and there is no independent judicial determination procedure. Huang Yi said that in cases where civil and criminal sentences intersect, even if the criminal case has made an effective judgment and the property involved in the case has not been identified as illegal gains or criminal gains, the public security organs, procuratorates and other judicial organs can still not unseal the case on the grounds that the property involved in the case is related to the case and needs to compensate the victims of the criminal case, and will not unseal all the victims until they have not been paid. As a result of this situation, even if a financial institution as a mortgagee or pledgee confirms through an effective civil judgment document that it has the statutory right of priority to be reimbursed for the property involved in the case and applies for compulsory enforcement, the court is also hindered by the fact that the property involved in the case is sealed and seized by the public security organ, the procuratorate and other judicial organs, and cannot dispose of the collateral or pledge in accordance with the law.

In addition, Huang Yi believes that the "Relevant Provisions on the Application of Sealing and Freezing Measures by Public Security Organs in Handling Criminal Cases" stipulates a consultation system between judicial organs, but it only stops at how to deal with consultation, and there is no further provision or effective remedy channel, especially in the case of inter-provincial public security organs sealing, resulting in an enforcement deadlock in criminal non-performing loan cases That is difficult to break.

In this regard, Huang Yi suggested that detailed rules for the judicial disposal of property involved in criminal-civil intersection cases be introduced to break the deadlock in the judicial disposal of collateral in criminal-related non-performing loan cases. Specifically, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security may jointly issue a document to clearly regulate how to initiate the "unrelated to the case" determination procedure, the subject of the determination, and the time limit for the determination of the collateral involving financial institutions in the seizure of property in criminal cases.

"The Central Political and Legal Commission, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security are to jointly formulate and improve the consultation system between judicial organs, clearly standardize the consultation mechanism of political and legal organs at all levels, and provide smooth channels for the disposal of relevant property and property." He suggested.