Dishonest Enforcement Record
A field guide to China's dishonest enforcement list: the six inclusion grounds, public fields, time limits, deletion states, and ordinary-debtor boundary.
A dishonest enforcement record means a Chinese court placed a person, company, or other organization on the 失信被执行人名单 during judgment enforcement. It is an additional list decision based on specified non-performance conduct. It is not another English name for every judgment debtor, every unpaid judgment, or every restriction-on-consumption record.
One enforcement case, two different records
Consider two fictional search results for the same company and case number.
Record A: ordinary person subject to enforcement
The court accepted an application to enforce an effective legal document. The public result identifies the enforcement court, filing date, case number, enforcement target, and case status. It establishes the company's role as 被执行人, but contains no separate dishonest-list reason or publication date.
Record B: dishonest person subject to enforcement
The same enforcement case is accompanied by a list entry identifying the effective obligation, performance state, specific dishonest conduct, and publication information. That extra decision is what supports the 失信被执行人 label. The Supreme People's Court's public query guide describes ordinary enforcement information and dishonest-list information as separate query categories.
This distinction prevents a common translation error: rendering every 被执行人 hit as “blacklisted” or “dishonest.” See Judgment Debtor in China for the ordinary case role.
The six routes into the list
Under the SPC's provisions on publishing dishonest enforcement information, the subject must have failed to perform an obligation in an effective legal document and meet at least one listed circumstance:
- having the ability to perform but refusing to do so;
- obstructing or resisting enforcement through forged evidence, violence, threats, or similar means;
- evading enforcement through sham litigation, sham arbitration, concealment or transfer of assets, or similar means;
- violating the property-reporting system;
- violating a restriction-on-consumption order; or
- refusing, without proper reason, to perform an enforcement settlement agreement.
A database hit should therefore include the specific circumstance, not only the English word “dishonest.” If that field is missing, preserve the gap rather than guessing which conduct the court found.
Guardrails around “able but refused”
The first route is not a shortcut for every unsatisfied amount. The same provisions say it should not be used where sufficient valid security exists, seized or frozen assets are enough to satisfy the obligation, the subject's lawful performance priority comes later, or the facts otherwise do not amount to ability plus refusal. A minor may not be placed on the list.
SPC guidance also stresses proportionate, good-faith enforcement and strict application of list conditions. This is why an ordinary enforcement record, inability to locate executable property, a consumption restriction, and a dishonest-list decision should remain separate fields in a due-diligence report.
How to read the published fields
For a company or other organization, the list information should identify its name, USCC or organization code, and legal representative or responsible person. It also records the effective obligation and performance, specific dishonest conduct, issuing unit and document number, enforcement case number, filing date, and enforcement court.
The legal representative's name is an identity field for the listed organization. Its appearance does not by itself prove that the individual has a separate personal list record. Match the company by Chinese legal name and USCC first, then record exactly who the list subject is.
The SPC's English overview of judicial transparency and enforcement queries confirms that enforcement cases and dishonest-person information can be searched through China Enforcement Information Online. The Chinese source fields remain the safer basis for a precise translation.
The list has more than one clock
For grounds two through six above, the standard inclusion period is two years. Serious obstruction through violence or threats, or multiple dishonest acts, can extend that period by one to three years. The provisions do not assign that same fixed period to ground one, so do not manufacture an expiry date for an “able but refused” entry.
Early deletion can follow active performance or correction. The court must also withdraw an improper entry or correct inaccurate information within the specified process, and listed events such as completed performance, a fully performed settlement, certain termination or suspension decisions, or an approved creditor request can trigger deletion. A deleted list entry does not rewrite the underlying judgment or execution case; those records have their own status and retention logic.
A neutral record to save
Capture the Chinese legal name and USCC; whether the listed subject is the company or an individual; list case number and enforcement court; effective legal-document reference; obligation and unperformed portion; exact dishonest-conduct field; filing and publication dates; stated inclusion period if any; current query date; and any correction, deletion, performance, or re-inclusion event.
Use that definition inside a broader evidence sequence rather than turning it into a standalone score. Read China Court and Enforcement Signals explains the full timeline, while Check Chinese Court and Enforcement Records covers the reproducible query process.