Recently, the Guangzhou Maritime Court successfully encouraged a foreign judgment debtor, who had been residing in Canada for an extended period, to voluntarily comply with all obligations as determined by a final judgment through the legal enforcement of exit control measures. This action underscores the authority and effectiveness of China's judicial system, serving as a model for enforcing foreign-related cases.

Overcoming Technical Obstacles

Legally Obtaining Key Information

This case involved a dispute over a time charter party, and the judgment became effective on December 17, 2019. As the judgment debtor, Lin, became a Canadian citizen in 2012, the enforcement of the case was concluded in September 2020. Subsequently, the applicant for enforcement filed a request with the court to resume enforcement and to impose exit control measures on Lin. To uphold judicial authority, the court reopened the case on May 27, 2024. After deliberation by the collegiate bench, the court decided to impose exit control measures on Lin.

Initially, the enforcement was hindered due to the applicant for enforcement being able to provide only a casual photograph of the judgment debtor, which did not meet the exit and entry management authority's requirement for a passport-style photo for foreign nationals. Since the judgment debtor's place of origin was Zhanjiang, Guangdong, the case handler, Wu Nianfeng, guided the lawyer of the applicant for enforcement to apply for a lawyer's investigation order to the court, requesting the Zhanjiang Public Security Bureau to provide the judgment debtor's passport photo from the judgment debtor's household registration file. With police cooperation, a clear electronic passport photo was obtained, and thus the technical barrier to implementing exit control measures was removed.

Implementing Exit Control Measures

Prompting Voluntary Compliance from the Judgment Debtor

When the evidence was complete, the court legally submitted the exit control application to the Guangdong High People's Court. On the morning of February 1, 2025, at approximately 6 a.m., Wu Nianfeng, the case handler, received an urgent notification from the exit-entry management agency at Chengdu Tianfu International Airport in Sichuan Province, confirming that the judgment debtor, Lin, had entered China. Wu immediately reported to the court leadership and the collegiate bench. Per relevant instructions, Wu urgently made a contingency plan to ensure that subsequent enforcement measures were efficiently coordinated under the law.

On February 26, 2025, Lin, who had completed a family visit, was intercepted by the local exit-entry management agency at Chengdu Tianfu International Airport while preparing to leave the country. Under the deterrent effect of the exit control measures, Lin immediately contacted the court and clearly expressed his intention to comply with his obligations.

Strategic Enforcement Measures

Judicial Authority Breaks the Stalemate

During the initial mediation, Lin repeatedly stalled compliance, citing "financial difficulties" and even claimed that "if the applicant for enforcement does not make concessions, I will simply allow my visa to expire and wait for the Chinese government to forcibly expel me." In response to such pressure tactics, Wu Nianfeng, based on the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People's Republic of China, and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Criminal Cases of Refusing to Enforce Judgments and Rulings, clarified three legal positions to Lin. First, the court has the authority to impose exit control measures on a judgment debtor who fails to fulfill the obligations outlined in a legally effective document, regardless of their visa status. Second, the expiration of a foreign national's visa in China constitutes illegal residence, which may result in administrative penalties such as warnings, fines, or detention. Third, if Lin deliberately resists enforcement by allowing his visa to expire, he could be criminally prosecuted under the charge of "refusing to enforce judgments and rulings." Through a layered legal explanation, Lin eventually abandoned his bargaining strategy and returned to a rational negotiation path.

Due to the applicant for enforcement being located in Jiangmen, Guangdong, and the respondent being stranded in Chengdu, Sichuan, Wu Nianfeng established a WeChat mediation group to facilitate negotiations, based on the Online Litigation Rules of the People's Courts. After multiple rounds of online discussions, both parties reached an enforcement settlement agreement, under which Lin would make a one-time payment of RMB 500,000 on March 4 to fulfill his obligations. The settlement agreement became effective upon confirmation by both parties.

Strict Control of Enforcement Risks

Second Interception Demonstrates Judicial Rigor

On the evening before the agreed payment date, at approximately 8 p.m., Lin attempted to leave the country from Haikou Meilan International Airport in Hainan Province. He was again intercepted by the local exit-entry management agency. Upon learning this information, Wu Nianfeng issued a stern warning to Lin and reiterated the consequences of refusing to fulfill his legal obligations. Under the continued restriction of the exit control measures, Lin made a full payment of RMB 500,000 the following day. The applicant for enforcement then submitted a request to the court to lift the exit control measures.

After confirming the payment was made, Wu Nianfeng promptly prepared the legal documents to lift the exit control measures and submitted them for review by the Guangdong High People's Court. On March 6, 2025, after the exit control measures were lifted, Lin departed for Canada. Afterward, Lin personally called the case handler to express his recognition of China's judicial authorities for their "balanced approach of firmness and flexibility" in enforcement and thanked the court for safeguarding his legal rights while upholding judicial authority.

Key Significance

Strengthening Foreign-related Enforcement and Optimizing the Rule-based Business Environment

This case is a vivid example of the Guangzhou Maritime Court's use of exit control measures to overcome the challenges in foreign-related enforcement. By precisely implementing compulsory measures and flexibly adopting an online mediation mechanism, the court not only upheld the binding force of China's judicial rulings but also demonstrated the standardization and efficiency of the enforcement process. This provides robust judicial protection for the creation of a market-oriented, law-based business environment up to international standards. A relevant official from the Enforcement Bureau stated that they would further improve the cooperative mechanism for the enforcement of foreign-related cases to ensure equal protection of the legitimate rights of both Chinese and foreign parties and boost high-level opening-up of China.