Methods for Investigating Asset Clues Through Public Channels
In China, a party may adopt the following approaches to investigate the counterparty’s assets through public channels.
Methods for Investigating Asset Clues with Court-Issued Attorney Investigation Orders
In addition, one party may appoint a licensed lawyer to investigate the following assets of another party with a court-issued attorney investigation order:
Methods for Investigating Asset Clues Through the Online Enforcement Enquiry and Control System
In 2014, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) established the Online Enforcement Enquiry and Control System (the “System”), a pioneering judicial mechanism featuring a dual-level architecture. The System is primarily composed of the SPC’s centralised “hub-to-hub” platform, supplemented by decentralised “point-to-point” systems operated by provincial high courts. After years of development, this integrated system is now interconnected with 16 central government agencies, including the Ministry of Public Security and Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as over 3,900 banking institutions. The System enables courts to conduct comprehensive queries across 25 specific data fields within 16 major asset categories, including but not limited to bank deposits, real estate properties, motor vehicles, insurance, securities holdings, financial investment products, vessels and digital payment balances (eg, Alipay/WeChat Pay balances). The System has achieved effective coverage of debtors’ primary asset categories and relevant information, significantly enhancing enforcement efficiency.
At the litigation or pre-litigation asset preservation stage, upon issuance of a preservation order, the plaintiff may submit a written request to the court to utilise the System to investigate the defendant’s assets and take preservation measures. The courts retain discretionary authority to approve or deny the System-based investigation. In practice, most courts do not authorise the use of the System to investigate the defendant’s assets during the litigation preservation stage. Instead, the courts require the plaintiff to provide specific asset leads to take preservation measures.
Unlike the discretionary approach in litigation asset preservation, at the enforcement stage, the courts are required to proactively utilise the System to investigate the defendant’s assets and take preservation measures.
According to the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the main types of adjudicatory documents issued by courts include the following.
Civil Judgment
A civil judgment is a court’s final ruling on substantive issues of a civil case, which can be categorised into:
Civil Mediation Statement
A civil mediation statement is a legally binding document issued by a court confirming a settlement agreement between parties, which shall have the same legal effect as a civil judgment.
Payment Order
A payment order is a court-issued order requiring a debtor to repay a monetary debt within a specified period. A creditor may apply to the court for a payment order provided that the following requirements are met: (i) there are no other debt disputes between the creditor and debtor; and (ii) the payment order can be served upon the debtor. If the debtor fails to file a written objection within 15 days, the payment order shall become enforceable.
Procedural Order
Courts may issue various types of rulings during case adjudication (including first instance, second instance and retrial proceedings) and preservation/enforcement procedures to address procedural matters and certain substantive matters. Such orders can be systematically categorised as follows:
Enforceable Instruments Issued by Authorities Other Than Courts
Besides arbitral awards, a notarised creditor’s rights document issued by a notary authority is also enforceable. The issuance of such a document requires satisfaction of the following conditions: (i) specification of monetary/property performance obligations; and (ii) the debtor’s express advance consent to enforcement.
A notarised creditor’s rights document allows creditors to bypass litigation and apply directly to the court for enforcement. The court may refuse enforcement if the document falls outside the scope of notarisable and enforceable instruments, or the document fails to state the debtor’s advance written consent to enforcement, among other circumstances.
If the debtor refuses to comply with the legally effective judgment, the court in Mainland China may impose the following enforcement measures.
Asset-Based Enforcement Measures
Assets investigation
Upon commencement of enforcement proceedings, courts will serve the debtor with an Enforcement Notice, and an Asset Disclosure Order requiring a full and truthful report to the court, with an explicit warning that failure to report or submission of false information may entail legal consequences including fines or detention. To investigate and verify the debtor’s asset information, courts will utilise the System, on-site inspections and other lawful investigation methods.
Freezing/seizing assets
Courts can freeze or seize the debtor’s assets including but not limited to:
Disposal of assets
For monetary assets (cash/funds), courts may directly transfer the amounts to creditors. For non-monetary assets (eg, real estate, equity stakes), courts typically value the assets through professional appraisal and liquidate them via public auction or private sale.
Behaviour and Credit Restriction Enforcement Measures
Courts may impose the following non-asset conduct and credit restriction enforcement measures against debtors:
Penalties for Refusing Court Enforcement
When debtors wilfully refuse to comply with court judgments, courts may impose:
Alternative Remedies
If no enforceable assets are found for the judgment debtor through various inquiries, the assets under the name of a third party may be legally enforced, or the third party may be added as a judgment debtor to increase the likelihood of debt recovery. Generally, under Chinese law, the common scenarios where the assets of a third party may be enforced or the third party may be added as a judgment debtor include the following.
Enforcement Fees
The applicant is not required to prepay execution fees when applying for compulsory enforcement in Mainland China. Such fees shall be borne by the judgment debtor and deducted from the recovered assets.
Enforcement Timeline
The statutory enforcement period is nominally six months for enforcement case filing; however, the actual duration may vary significantly on a case-by-case basis. This depends primarily on:
Methods for Courts to Investigate a Defendant’s Assets in Enforcement Proceedings
Court-ordered asset disclosure
The court issues an Asset Disclosure Order, requiring the debtor to truthfully disclose its current assets (eg, deposits, real estate, vehicles, equity, claims) and property transfers within one year prior to receiving the enforcement notice. Refusal to comply or false reporting by the debtor may result in fines, detention or criminal liability.
Court-initiated inquiries
The court can efficiently query nationwide information on the debtor’s asset through the System, including but not limited to bank deposits, real estate properties, motor vehicles, insurance, securities holdings, financial investment products, vessels and digital payment balances (eg, Alipay/WeChat Pay balances).
On-site investigation
The enforcement judge may conduct field surveys and searches at the debtor’s domicile or any locations where property might be located.
In addition, the enforcement judge may collect asset clues from relevant units (eg, municipal commission of housing, traffic management bureaus, market regulation administrations, housing fund management centres, social security bureaus, employers) or individuals.
Summons for enquiry
The enforcement judge may summon the debtor or their legal representative, principal responsible person, de facto controller, or directly responsible person to the court for investigation and enquiry, in order to clarify the debtor’s property status and the ability to perform obligations. If the summoned person or representative of the company fails to appear without justifiable reason after lawful summons, the court may subject them to detention for interrogation.
Search warrant
Where there is evidence or indication to believe that the debtor is concealing assets, accounting books or other materials and refuses to surrender them, the court may issue a search warrant and conduct a search of the debtor’s domicile or locations where the assets may be concealed.
Methods for Applicants to Investigate a Defendant’s Assets in Enforcement Proceedings
Applying for a Lawyer Investigation Order
The creditor’s lawyer may submit a written application to the court to issue a Lawyer Investigation Order to authorise the lawyer to investigate specific asset information of the debtor within a defined timeframe and scope. The common investigation scope includes:
Applying for a Reward Notice
The creditor may submit a written application to the court to make a public announcement to offer a reward for information leading to the discovery of the debtor’s assets’ clues or whereabouts. Informers whose provided clues are verified as true and lead to actual recovery will receive the reward according to the standard or proportion promised in the announcement, and such cost is typically borne by the creditor.
In any of the following circumstances, the court shall order a stay of enforcement of judgments:
In any of the following circumstances, the court may order a stay of enforcement of judgments:
In any of the following circumstances, the judgments cannot be enforced:
As a general principle, civil judgments and rulings (excluding civil mediation statements) shall be published on the China Judgments Online website.
Statutory exceptions prohibiting online publication of judicial documents include:
When publishing judicial documents, courts must redact the following information:
If any party objects to the online publication of civil judgments/rulings, it may file a written application with the court requesting full non-publication, partial redaction or anonymisation (eg, replacing names with “Zhang XX”) with justification (eg, involvement of trade secrets or personal privacy).
Legal Basis for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments
In China, the primary legal basis for recognising and enforcing foreign court judgments includes the following.
International treaties
China has not yet acceded to any universal international convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
Bilateral judicial assistance agreements
China has concluded bilateral judicial assistance treaties or agreements containing provisions on the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments with the following 35 countries: France, Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Spain, Hungary, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Poland, Mongolia, Belarus, Argentina, Vietnam, Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Romania, Bulgaria, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Tunisia, Peru, Algeria, Kuwait, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Lithuania and North Korea.
Principle of reciprocity
In the absence of treaty relations, Chinese courts may examine applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments based on the principle of reciprocity. In judicial practice, the establishment of reciprocity includes:
Legal Basis for Recognition and Enforcement of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan Court Judgments
Concerning the recognition and enforcement in Mainland China of civil and commercial judgments issued by the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Macau SAR and the Taiwan region, the SPC has promulgated the following specialised judicial instruments:
Parties may apply to courts in Mainland China for recognition and enforcement of relevant judgments from these jurisdictions under the above arrangements and regulations.
The procedures for applying to Chinese Mainland courts for recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts in the Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and the Taiwan region are substantially similar to those for recognising and enforcing foreign judgments in Mainland China. This section focuses exclusively on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
Foreign Legal Instruments Eligible for Recognition and Enforcement
These include:
Foreign Legal Instruments Ineligible for Recognition and Enforcement
These include procedural judicial documents such as preservative orders (eg, property seizures, injunctions), evidence-taking orders, etc.
Where a party applies to a court in Mainland China for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment or ruling, the court shall dismiss the application under any of the following circumstances.
Absence of Treaty or Reciprocal Relationship
The country where the foreign court is located has neither concluded nor jointly acceded to any international treaty with the PRC, nor has established a reciprocal relationship (except for applications recognising legally effective divorce judgments rendered by foreign courts).
Unverifiable Authenticity
The court, after examination, cannot verify the authenticity of the foreign judgment or ruling.
Non-Effectiveness or Lack of Finality
The foreign judgment or ruling has not yet become legally effective or lacks finality under the laws of that country (eg, where an appeal has been filed and remains pending).
Where the court has dismissed an application, the applicant may re-file the application. If the re-filed application meets the admissibility criteria, the court shall accept it according to law.
When applying to a court in Mainland China for recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment, the applicant shall follow these steps below:
Step One: Preparation of Case Filing Documents
For recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, the applicant shall prepare the following documents:
Step Two: Application for Recognition and Enforcement
Jurisdiction
The applicant shall submit to the Intermediate People’s Court where the respondent has its domicile or assets. Where the respondent has no domicile/assets in Mainland China, the applicant can submit to the Intermediate People’s Court where the applicant is domiciled.
Time limit
The applicant shall apply for enforcement within two years from the judgment’s effective date. Late filing will result in loss of enforcement rights.
Adjudication process
The court shall constitute a collegial panel within 15 days. The respondent must file a defence within 15 days (if domestically domiciled) or 30 days (if overseas domiciled) after receiving the copy of the application. Before issuing the final ruling, the court shall report the final ruling to the SPC for archival filing.
Remedy
Parties dissatisfied with recognition/non-recognition rulings may apply for reconsideration to the higher court within ten days of service.
Step Three: Application for Compulsory Enforcement
Where recognition is granted, parties may apply for compulsory enforcement in Mainland China based on the effective ruling. Enforcement procedures are largely consistent with those for domestic judgments (see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments).
Recognition and Enforcement Fees
The parties seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Mainland China shall bear the following costs:
Recognition and Enforcement Timeline
Recognition phase
The standard timeframe for recognition of foreign court judgments is normally six to 12 months from filing to ruling, which may be extended when jurisdictional challenges are raised or complex factual determinations are required.
Enforcement phase
As detailed in 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments, the statutory enforcement period is nominally six months; however, actual duration varies significantly on a case-by-case basis in practice.
Pursuant to Article 300 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, the Interpretation of the SPC on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law (the “SPC CPL Interpretation”), and the Minutes of the National Conference on Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Trials (the “Foreign-Related Minutes”), people’s courts shall refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or rulings under any of the following circumstances.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Defects
Jurisdictional defect
Fraudulent judgment
The judgment was obtained through fraudulent means.
Res Judicata and Public Order Conflicts
Violation of res judicata
A legally effective judgment on the same dispute has been rendered by a Chinese court or a third-country court.
Public policy
Violation of fundamental principles of Chinese law, or prejudice to state sovereignty, security or public interests. Chinese courts narrowly interpret public policy, applying only to fundamental violations, not legal errors.
Special Defences
Expiry of enforcement period
The respondent proves the application was filed beyond the two-year enforcement limitation period.
Excessive damages in violation of public interest
Where damages awarded in a foreign judgment substantially exceed actual losses, the court may refuse recognition and enforcement of the excess portion.
Arbitration agreement priority
For default judgments, the court identifies a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, and the absent party did not expressly waive its arbitration rights.
Parties dissatisfied with a recognition/non-recognition ruling may apply for reconsideration to the higher court within ten days of service. The higher court shall issue a final ruling within 30 days.
Legal Basis for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
International treaty
The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Mainland China is governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which entered into force in China on 22 April 1987. As of 2024, the New York Convention has 174 contracting states, covering most major jurisdictions. Arbitral awards compliant with the New York Convention may be recognised and enforced by Chinese courts.
When acceding to the New York Convention, China made two reservations, specifically:
In essence, for a foreign arbitral award to be recognised and enforced in China under the New York Convention, it must meet two fundamental requirements:
Reciprocity Principle
For arbitral awards from non-New York Convention states, parties may seek recognition and enforcement under Article 304 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC based on the principle of reciprocity.
Legal Basis for Recognition and Enforcement of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan Arbitral Awards
Concerning the recognition and enforcement in Mainland China of arbitral awards issued by arbitral institutions in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and the Taiwan region, the SPC has promulgated the following specialised judicial instruments:
Parties may apply to courts in Mainland China for recognition and enforcement of relevant arbitral awards from these jurisdictions under the above arrangements and regulations.
Procedure of Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
The procedure for applying for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in China consists of two steps. First, the applicant applies to the court for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. After review, the court issues a ruling on whether to recognise the award. After obtaining the recognition ruling, the applicant then applies to the court for compulsory enforcement of the foreign arbitral award.
Regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, an applicant shall file an application with the Intermediate People’s Court where the award debtor is domiciled or where the debtor’s assets are located. If the domicile or assets of the award debtor are not within the territory of the PRC, the application shall be filed to the Intermediate People’s Court at the applicant’s domicile or at a location with an appropriate connection to the dispute subject to the award.
Procedure of Enforcement of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan Arbitral Awards
The procedure for applying for recognition and enforcement of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan arbitral awards in China consists of two steps. First, the applicant applies to the court for recognition and enforcement of the Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan arbitral award. After review, the court will issue a ruling on whether to recognise and enforce the award. After obtaining the recognition ruling, the applicant then applies to the court for compulsory enforcement of the foreign arbitral award.
For the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in Hong Kong, the applicant shall apply to the Intermediate People’s Court at the respondent’s domicile or the location of assets.
For the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in Macau, the applicant shall apply to the Intermediate People’s Court at the respondent’s domicile, habitual residence, or the location of assets.
For the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in Taiwan, the applicant shall apply to either the Intermediate People’s Court at the applicant’s domicile/habitual residence, or at the respondent’s domicile/habitual residence/location of assets, or a specialised people’s court.
Procedure for Enforcement of Domestic Arbitral Awards
Domestic arbitral awards do not require a separate recognition procedure; the applicant may directly apply for enforcement.
Regarding the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards, jurisdiction principally lies with the Intermediate People’s Court at the award debtor’s domicile or the location of assets subject to enforcement. Exceptionally, where special local provisions apply (eg, pursuant to judicial authorisation by the SPC allowing Basic People’s Courts in Shenzhen to handle certain domestic award enforcement cases), jurisdiction may vest with the Basic People’s Court.
Categories of Foreign Arbitral Awards Not Enforceable
Pursuant to China’s commercial reservation declaration upon acceding to the New York Convention, the New York Convention shall apply exclusively to disputes arising from contractual or non-contractual commercial legal relationships as defined under Chinese law.
Consequently, China recognises and enforces foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention only for commercial disputes, excluding disputes between foreign investors and host state governments.
The term “contractual or non-contractual commercial legal relationships” specifically refers to economic rights and obligations arising from contracts, torts or statutory provisions. This includes, but is not limited to:
Categories of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan Arbitral Awards Not Enforceable
China recognises and enforces arbitral awards rendered in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan concerning civil and commercial disputes, excluding disputes between foreign investors and host state government entities, and non-commercial disputes as defined by laws of Mainland China.
Procedures for Applying for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign As Well As Arbitral Awards in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan Arbitral Awards
Phase 1: Application for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards
The procedures are largely unified for foreign and Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan awards.
Phase 2: Enforcement of arbitral awards
Procedures for Applying for Enforcement of Domestic Arbitral Awards
The procedures are the same as those for the enforcement of arbitral awards mentioned above.
Recognition and Enforcement Fees of Foreign Arbitral Awards As Well As Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan Arbitral Awards
The parties seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as well as Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan arbitral awards shall bear the following costs:
Timeline for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as well as Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan Arbitral Awards
Recognition phase
The standard timeline for recognition of foreign arbitral awards as well as Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan arbitral awards is normally six to 12 months from filing to ruling, which may be extended when jurisdictional challenges are raised or complex factual determinations are required.
Enforcement phase
As detailed in 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments, the statutory enforcement period is nominally six months; however, actual duration varies significantly on a case-by-case basis in practice.
Enforcement Fees and Timeline of Domestic Arbitral Awards
The fees and timeline for applying for enforcement of domestic awards in Mainland China is detailed in 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments.
Refusing Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
According to Article 5 of the New York Convention, Chinese courts may refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the following circumstances.
Refusing Recognition and Enforcement of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan Arbitral Awards
The circumstances under which Chinese courts may refuse recognition and enforcement of Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan arbitral awards are largely consistent with those for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as outlined above.
Refusing Enforcement or Setting Aside Domestic Arbitral Awards
Chinese courts may refuse enforcement or set aside domestic arbitral awards in the following circumstances.
Furthermore, for foreign arbitral awards, Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan arbitral awards, and domestic arbitral awards, recognition and enforcement/enforcement shall be refused if the application is filed after the two-year limitation period for enforcement, and the opposing party objects to the application on the grounds that the limitation period has expired.
9/F Office Tower C1
Oriental Plaza
1 East Chang An Avenue
Dongcheng District
Beijing 100738
People’s Republic of China
+86 10 8525 5500
+86 10 8525 5511/5522
beijing@hankunlaw.com www.hankunlaw.comThe Rise of Reciprocity-Based Recognition of Foreign Judgments: From Principle to Practice
Legal framework: treaty and reciprocity-based recognition
In accordance with the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC Civil Procedure Law”) and its interpretation, foreign civil or commercial judgments may be recognised and enforced in China through two primary legal avenues: (i) pursuant to international treaties or bilateral agreements to which China is a party, or (ii) based on the principle of reciprocity. These mechanisms operate under the overarching limitation that recognition must not contravene the fundamental interests of China, including its sovereignty, national security and public policy.
Historically, the absence of a binding treaty has often posed practical difficulties for litigants seeking to enforce foreign judgments in China. In response, the Chinese judiciary has progressively refined and expanded the application of the reciprocity principle in cross-border enforcement cases. A significant milestone was the promulgation of the Minutes of the National Symposium on the Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work of Courts (the “Judicial Minutes”) by the Supreme People’s Court in 2022.
Defining reciprocity: judicial minutes
Article 44 of the Judicial Minutes provides critical guidance for courts in determining whether a reciprocal relationship exists between China and the foreign jurisdiction whose judgment is sought for recognition. The provision delineates three categories of reciprocity:
Under the Judicial Minutes, the flexible and pragmatic approach significantly departs from earlier rigid interpretations that required prior actual enforcement cases as a prerequisite for establishing reciprocity.
Guiding Case No 235: a turning point in judicial practice
In 2024, the Supreme People’s Court formally released Guiding Case No 235, which has since become emblematic of China’s forward-looking stance on reciprocity. This case involved an attempt by S Shipping Co to enforce multiple English judgments against MH Logistics Group for breaches of charterparty guarantees. The Shanghai Maritime Court, in a 2022 order, ruled that the absence of an international treaty or past recognition history between the UK and China did not preclude enforcement.
Instead, the court articulated a broader and more principled interpretation of reciprocity, holding that: (i) Chinese courts may presume reciprocity exists if the laws of the foreign jurisdiction allow, in principle, the recognition of Chinese judgments; and (ii) there is no recorded precedent of the foreign jurisdiction denying enforcement of a Chinese judgment on grounds of non-reciprocity.
This decision enables creditors from jurisdictions with compatible recognition frameworks – even without enforcement precedents – to pursue enforcement in China, marking a decisive break from the restrictive “factual reciprocity” requirement that had previously governed judicial discretion. This has alleviated a longstanding deadlock in international civil judgment recognition.
Following the issuance of Guiding Case No 235, Chinese courts have continued to apply such principles. On 16 January 2023, in Case (2022) Jing 01 Po Shen No 786, the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court recognised and enforced a bankruptcy ruling issued by the Aachen Local Court in Germany. This case reinforced a broader judicial commitment to the principle of de jure reciprocity and its application in the absence of binding treaties.
Together, these cases signal a transformation in China’s approach to cross-border civil judicial assistance, marking its transition from a passive to a proactive contributor in the global recognition of judgments regime.
Grounds for Refusal in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Recent Chinese Practice
As globalisation deepens, a growing number of applications have been filed to Chinese courts for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. While a significant majority have been granted, a notable proportion of applications were refused due to procedural flaws, jurisdictional issues or conflicts with domestic legal principles. The authors will analyse the major grounds and representative cases where Chinese courts have declined to recognise or enforce foreign judgments over the past five years.
Legal basis and framework for review
Under Articles 299 and 300 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law and its judicial interpretation, the Chinese courts adopt a “limited substantive review” model. After the establishment of reciprocity, the courts focus on five enumerated grounds for refusal: (i) the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under Chinese law; (ii) the defendant was not duly summoned or given a fair chance to be heard; (iii) the judgment was obtained through fraud; (iv) a Chinese or third-country court has already adjudicated the same dispute; and (v) the enforcement would violate China’s fundamental legal principles or public interest, a residual ground for denial.
Recent Chinese practice
The legal rules outlined above are the foundation for the courts’ analytical framework. In practice, courts assess each application by matching statutory grounds with factual circumstances. The following cases illustrate how these grounds are applied.
Improper service or denial of due process
In Case (2020) Liao 01 Xie Wai Ren No 7, the court dismissed the enforcement request due to a failure to timely file an application. This demonstrates the strict procedural requirements Chinese courts impose on foreign judgments.
In Case (2020) Jing 04 Xie Wai Ren No 2, the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court refused to recognise and enforce a civil judgment issued by the Udmurtia Commercial Court of the Russian Federation. Applying the Treaty Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, the court found that the Russian court had not lawfully summoned the Chinese respondent. The time between the delivery of the judicial assistance requests and the hearing was less than six months, failing to meet the due process standards under both the bilateral treaty and the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. As a result, the recognition of the foreign judgment was denied.
Such procedural issues frequently arise in default judgments or informal service scenarios. Chinese courts apply a heightened scrutiny when due process protections are lacking.
Conflict with Chinese or third-country judgments
In Case (2018) Yue 03 Min Chu No 420, the court declined to recognise a New Zealand judgment as a related case was pending in a Chinese court. This reflects China’s commitment to maintaining its own jurisdiction and avoiding contradictory outcomes.
This provision prevents inconsistent judgments and upholds legal certainty.
Violation of fundamental legal principles or public policy
In Cases (2019) Yue 01 Xie Wai Ren No 22, the Guangzhou court partially recognised US judgments but refused to enforce the punitive damages, which significantly exceeded the actual damages, citing inconsistency with the Chinese compensatory civil law framework.
This flexible standard illustrates how Chinese courts balance domestic legal values with the demands of international co-operation.
In conclusion, foreign parties and counsel should pay close attention to key elements such as jurisdictional basis, due service and public policy considerations. Advance compliance plan will significantly enhance the likelihood of successful recognition in China.
Filing and reporting mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
Pursuant to the Judicial Minutes, when a people’s court concludes a case involving the application for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, it shall file the case level by level with the Supreme People’s Court for the record within 15 days after rendering the ruling.
Prior to rendering a ruling, the people’s court that examines a case in accordance with the principle of reciprocity shall report the proposed handling opinions to the competent High People’s Court under the jurisdiction for review; if the High People’s Court agrees with the proposed handling opinions, it shall report its review opinions to the Supreme People’s Court for review. A ruling may be made only after the Supreme People’s Court gives a reply.
Breakthrough Remedies for Creditors Facing Enforcement Impasses
The enforcement impasse
In Chinese enforcement practice, once a judgment, including a recognised foreign judgment, or arbitration award enters the compulsory enforcement phase, the enforcement court may investigate the debtor’s assets and take measures such as the freezing of assets, seizure or auction. However, if the enforcement court finds that the debtor lacks enforceable assets or the available assets cannot be disposed at that time, the court may, pursuant to statutory procedures, terminate the current enforcement proceedings. Such proceedings may be recommenced if new asset clues are discovered.
This common enforcement deadlock in termination of current enforcement proceeding is often caused by:
Recognising these realities, Chinese authorities have developed new remedial mechanisms in recent years to strengthen judgment enforcement and provide meaningful relief to creditors.
Criminal liability for refusal to comply with effective judgments
One powerful remedy is criminal prosecution for refusal to comply with effective court judgments or rulings (the “offence”), provided for under Article 313 of the PRC Criminal Law. This provision has been clarified by multiple legislative and judicial documents, including the Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Regarding Article 313 of the PRC Criminal Law and the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Refusal to Comply with Judgments or Rulings (the “Judicial Interpretation”), which came into effect on 1 December 2024. The Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security recently issued the Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Cases of Refusal to Execute Judgments or Rulings (the “Opinions”), effective on 1 July 2025, which clarify the procedures and key considerations for handling such cases.
Key elements of this offence are as follows.
Individuals convicted may face imprisonment or fines, while companies are subject to financial penalties and confiscation. The relevant assets of the convicted individual may be directly recovered or ordered to be returned and disposed of by the enforcement court, and the applicant for enforcement will not be required to seek relief through separate proceedings. For example, in Case (2024) Gan 08 Xing Zhong No 140, an individual subject to enforcement was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for waiving a claim of CNY400,000 against a third party after the judgment rendered by the court had become effective. In Case (2023) Ji 04 Xing Zhong No 537, a company was fined CNY100,000, and its legal representative was sentenced to one year and four months of imprisonment for transferring approximately CNY240,000 to a third party instead of compliance with a final and binding judgment.
Since the end of 2024, the successive issuance and implementation of judicial interpretations and policy guidance has reflected a clear stance by Chinese judicial authorities to strengthen criminal enforcement of judgments and rulings. We believe that the criminal route for refusal to comply with judgments or rulings will become an effective remedy for creditors in situations where the judgment debtor is unable or unwilling to perform. Applicants for enforcement are encouraged to examine whether the judgment debtor has engaged in acts of refusal and to promptly report any leads to the enforcement court or, where applicable, initiate private prosecution proceedings.
Joinder of additional parties in enforcement proceedings
Under PRC Civil Procedure Law and Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Modification and Addition of Parties in Civil Enforcement, creditors may request that parties other than the named debtor be added as judgment obligors if certain statutory conditions are met. This remedy aims to pierce the formal limitations of judgments to hold substantively liable parties accountable. Common scenarios for the joining of parties are as follows.
The PRC Company Law (the “new Company Law”), effective on 1 July 2024, has substantially simplified the procedure for adding undercapitalised shareholders as enforcement targets. Previously, creditors had to prove company insolvency or acceleration of capital contribution deadlines. Courts were cautious to address substantive disputes during enforcement, often requiring separate litigation with full court fees. Now, the new Company Law dispenses with the need for acceleration or separate proceedings. Judges have authority to join shareholders in enforcement proceeding, reducing delays and costs. Creditors may also seek asset preservation orders against proposed joined parties earlier in the process, enhancing recovery possibilities.
Separate litigation for accountability
In addition to the provisions on joinder of parties to enforcement, the PRC Civil Code (the “Civil Code”), the new Company Law, and other relevant laws and regulations provide that certain parties may bear joint and several liability for a company’s debts under specified circumstances. However, since applications for joinder during enforcement proceedings must be based strictly on the provisions governing such enforcement, creditors may only seek relief by filing a separate lawsuit in circumstances not explicitly covered by such provisions, such as where the debtor is insolvent. Common scenarios are as follows.
Notably, where a controlling shareholder or actual controller instructs directors to act against the interests of the company, creditors may also bring a separate action under Article 192 of the new Company Law, seeking joint and several liability from such controlling shareholders, actual controllers and directors.
Overall, the new Company Law strengthens the obligations and responsibilities of shareholders and directors. When a debtor determined by an effective legal instrument is a company, and the company is unable to satisfy its debts, creditors should actively consider investigating whether the company’s shareholders or directors have engaged in conduct detrimental to the company or the creditors’ interests and seek remedies through separate litigation, as legally appropriate.
Transfer from enforcement to bankruptcy proceedings
Where a company debtor is unable to satisfy all of its debts and faces claims from multiple creditors, or where it is evidently insolvent, a creditor who has not obtained a prior preservation of assets (hereinafter referred to as a “Subordinated Creditor”) may find itself unable to recover from the remaining assets, as other creditors with preservation orders will enjoy priority satisfaction through enforcement. In such cases, the Subordinated Creditor may, pursuant to the Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Promulgation of the Guiding Opinions on Several Issues concerning the Transfer from Judgment Enforcement to Bankruptcy Examination and other relevant regulations, apply to the enforcement court to transfer the enforcement proceeding to bankruptcy review.
Upon bankruptcy acceptance, enforcement proceedings are suspended and preservation measures are lifted, with the debtor’s assets being managed collectively as the bankruptcy estate. Upon receipt of such an acceptance ruling, the enforcement court will transfer the debtor’s assets under its actual control (such as bank deposits already seized or credited, movable property actually detained, securities, etc) to the bankruptcy court or the appointed administrator. At that point, the Subordinated Creditor may, in accordance with the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, participate in distribution on a pari passu basis with other creditors of the same ranking (including those creditors who had previously obtained asset preservation orders) in proportion to the amount of their recognised claims.
In conclusion, China’s judicial system has undergone a substantial evolution in recent years, both in recognising and enforcing foreign judgments and in strengthening relief mechanisms for creditors facing enforcement obstacles. The refinement of the reciprocity principle – from a rigid factual prerequisite to a legal presumption grounded in compatibility – signals China’s increasing alignment with international standards in private international law. At the same time, the expansion of creditor remedies in domestic enforcement highlights the system’s growing emphasis on accountability, deterrence and fairness.
9/F Office Tower C1
Oriental Plaza
1 East Chang An Avenue
Dongcheng District
Beijing 100738
People’s Republic of China
+86 10 8525 5500
+86 10 8525 5511/5522
beijing@hankunlaw.com www.hankunlaw.com