视点 | 关于强制执行股权的实务问题研究

股权执行的法律基础主要来源于民诉法、公司法及相关司法解释。公司法对 股权出质 、转让、优先购买权等有基本规定，《公司法》第八十五条明确：“人民法院依照法律规定的强制执行程序转让股东的股权时，应当通知公司及全体股东，其他股东在同等条件下有优先购买权。其他股东自人民法院通知之日起满二十日不行使优先购买权的，视为放弃优先购买权”。同时，第86条、第87条、第88条等分别规定了股权转让登记、出资责任等事项，其中新增第88条进一步明确，股东转让已认缴未届出资期限股权的，由受让人承担缴纳义务，受让人未足额缴纳的，转让人在前述出资范围内承担补充责任。上述公司法规定为执行股权提供了制度依据。但，公司法自身并未详细规范股权执行程序。多年来，司法实践中缺乏专门准则，导致执行中各类争议并存。为此，最高院通过《最高人民法院关于人民法院强制执行股权若干问题的规定》（以下简称“股权执行规定”），形成系统的执行规则。该规定明确了股权执行的范围和基本原则：人民法院只能直接执行股东持有的股权，而不得直接对公司财产进行处分；股权所在地管辖原则适用公司住所地。规定对股权查控、冻结方式、起拍价确定、拍卖程序、出资责任、异议处理等环节作了详细规定，填补了立法空白。例如，该规定第4条明确了法院可以依据章程、股东名册、登记备案和公示信息等资料查封、冻结股权；第5条规定股权冻结金额不得明显超标；第6条规定冻结须向公司登记机关送达裁定书和协助执行通知书并要求其在国家企业信用信息公示；第14条列举了不能阻止股权拍卖的各类情形。此外，《股权执行规定》还配套修改了若干执行、拍卖司法解释，如参照适用“执行抵债参考价”相关规则，进一步细化了执行流程。

综上所述，股权执行制度经历了由零散原则到具体规则的演进：早期主要依靠公司法条文和一般执行原则，解决方案多由法官裁量；《股权执行规定》正式实施后，形成较为完整的法律框架。同时，《民法典》第154条对于恶意串通损害他人权益的行为予以无效确认，也为规范股权冻结期间的异常行为提供法源支持。

股权执行程序可分为：查控冻结阶段、评估定价阶段、拍卖变价阶段和异议审查阶段，每一阶段均存在争议和操作难点：

根据《股权执行规定》第4条，法院可根据公司章程、股东名册、登记备案或“信用信息公示系统”信息确定股权归属并冻结。故，只要登记在被执行人名下的股权均可成为执行标的。实践中，还可依据执行程序《查封、扣押、冻结财产的规定》第17条，将被执行人实际受让但尚未完成登记的股权，以及他人代持被执行人股权作为冻结对象。在冻结额度问题上，《股权执行规定》第5条要求“股权冻结以其价额足以清偿债权及费用为限，不得明显超标”。即法院应根据生效判决确定债权额及执行费限额冻结相应比例的股权，如果被执行人认为冻结过高，可书面提出异议并提供证据。实务中，由于股权真实价值难以提前评估，法院常先按申请人请求的比例冻结股权份额，再由被执行人提出异议倒逼其提供财务资料确定股权价值。

冻结方式与效力上，《股权执行规定》第6条规定法院冻结股权须向公司登记机关送达裁定书和协助执行通知书并要求其在企业信用系统予以公示，冻结自公示时生效。多个法院对同一股权冻结时，以先行公示者为先。冻结生效后，依据第7条，被执行人对被冻结股权的处分行为不得对抗申请执行人。即冻结是“相对的”：被执行人虽不能将该股权自由转让或再质押，但因新制可融资可处置（所得资金须用于清偿债务），故冻结本身不会使债权消灭。对于案外人与被执行人之间可能隐蔽的交易，如有权利第三方取得冻结股权，应通过案外人 执行异议之诉 予以审查。

股息红利冻结上，《股权执行规定》第9条明确“股权冻结并不及于股息、红利等收益”，也即法院冻结股权后，需要向公司送达裁定书，要求其在收益到期时通知法院并将收益支付给申请执行人或法院。在实践中，经常忽视对未来分红冻结，一旦公司准时分红，被执行人将获得这部分收益。故申请执行人须主动关注目标公司分红信息，并及时申请法院针对股息红利下达支付裁定。

在增资、减资等公司行为上，《股权执行规定》第8条规定冻结股权并不限制公司实施增资、减资、合并、分立等行为，法院可要求公司在此类重大决策前向法院报告，报告后及时通知申请人。若公司或控制人故意通过增资、贬损性减资、转让重大资产等行为造成冻结股权价值严重贬损，影响申请人债权实现，申请人可以依法提起损害赔偿或决议无效诉讼。例如，在（2022）吉0203号民初1863号案中，法院认为在股权冻结期间公司进行大幅增资造成目标股东持股比例由82%降为23%，严重贬损了股权价值，系恶意串通实施损害他人合法权益的行为，依据《民法典》及《公司法》应予确认该股东会增资决议无效，并恢复冻结前股权状态。

处置参考价确定是股权变现前的重要准备，此阶段的纠纷多发生于资料难以获取和价格定位上。法院可依当事人议价、定向/网络询价或委托评估等方式确定处置参考价。实际中，由于股权价值高度依赖公司经营情况，难以通过简单询价形成市场价，多数案件采取委托评估。然而，评估所需的公司财务、运营等资料往往由目标公司掌握且不愿提供，实务统计股权评估完成仅占少数。根据《股权执行规定》第12条，若评估机构因资料不全无法评估，法院可通知评估机构在现有资料基础上出具报告，并提示当事人资料缺失可能带来的后果。此外，法院可以向登记、税务等机关调取资料，或责令被执行人、公司等提交资料；拒不提供的，可依法强制提取。若上述措施仍不足，避免执行陷入僵局，第12条规定法院可以在债权执行费用总额以上适当价格确定起拍价，但被执行公司经营严重异常、股权明显无价值的除外。实践中，这意味着拍卖价最低可设为评估费加执行费总额，以平衡申请人权益与变价效率。

故，在实践中，建议申请执行人提前向法院说明目标企业经营状况（如是否停产、重大资产、债权债务等），并争取法院发出调查令，通过银行、税务、工商等渠道搜集资料，协助评估机构编制评估报告。评估报告出具后，由于通常有效期仅一年，执行法院应尽快启动拍卖程序以防报告过期而影响处置。

股权拍卖及变价环节的争议主要体现在股权 分拆拍卖 、竞买人资格和拍卖后股权附带责任等方面。

拍卖范围：主要问题是整体拍卖还是分拆拍卖，当冻结股权拍卖所得价款显著高于债权及费用时，《规定》第13条规定应分拆拍卖相应比例的股权，以保障被执行人的剩余股权价值不被无谓剥夺。但考虑 控制权溢价 因素，被执行人可申请将超额部分一并拍卖。这一机制兼顾了债权实现和股东权益保护，两方也可在拍卖前协商对债务价款分配方案。

国有股权拍卖方式：根据相关规定，一般采用网络司法拍卖，但实践中有观点认为《企业国有资产法》限制国有资产只能进场交易，不宜走网络拍卖程序。对此，主流观点认为网络司法拍卖由于竞价更公开、更易参与，符合“等价有偿、公开、公平、公正”的原则，不会造成国有资产流失，并且能避免私下交易风险。

瑕疵出资及出资责任：对于“ 瑕疵出资股权 ”或“未届出资期限股权”，《规定》第14条允许拍卖，但未规定拍卖后出资责任。依据公司法及其司法解释，转让/拍卖后股权出资责任由受让人承担，转让人根据情形承担补充或连带责任。具体地，《公司法》第88条规定，转让已认缴未届出资期限股权的，由受让人承担缴纳义务，受让人未足额缴纳的，转让人承担补充责任；对于实缴不足（瑕疵出资）股权的，转让人和受让人在不足部分承担连带责任，受让人若不知情则仅转让人承担责任。实务中，拍卖公告通常仅载明认缴额、实缴额和出资期限，竞买人无法深入审核。因此，竞买人应通过查阅公开资料或尽调方式了解出资情况，尽量提高“善意”程度，以免事后因瑕疵出资遭追责。

竞买资格审查（前置审批类股权）：对需要政府部门事前批准转让的股权（如证券公司、金融机构等），《规定》第15条要求法院在拍卖公告中明确竞买人资格条件，并由竞买人自行办理审批手续。买受人在成交后未在合理期限内取得股权变更批准的，法院应裁定重新拍卖，并不退还保证金。此规定兼顾了提高拍卖效率和保护债权人利益的原则，防止因审批延误导致拍卖程序反复。

股权执行程序中，围绕代持股权、已签合同未登记股权、股东优先购买权等问题经常产生异议。此类异议通常以执行异议之诉的形式提起。

代持股权（隐名股东）异议：当名义股东持有的股权被执行时，实际出资人往往以代持关系抗辩。对这类案件，需关注：代持协议是否真实有效、实际出资人在股权冻结前是否已取得实质权利（如登记在股东名册、行使表决权、收取分红等）。如果实际出资人通过行使股东权利等方式已在实质上取得了股权，则可主张排除名义股东名下股权的执行。此时，实际出资人只有在证明申请执行人不具备善意信赖的情况下，才能排除执行。实践中，最高法院曾呈现两种对立倾向，一种认为应支持实际出资人排除执行，一种则倾向维护善意债权人的执行利益。例如，在（2021）苏01民终11692号案中，南京中院判决实际出资人对损失发生亦负有过错，根据过失相抵原则应自行承担部分损失；而早前的（2020）最高法民申7017号案则支持实际股东的权益优先。虽然当前司法实践尚未就“股权代持执行异议”达成完全统一标准，但这也为个案根据具体情况判断留下了转圜的余地。

股权转让尚未完成登记的异议：在股权转让情形中，若受让人已支付对价并实际取得股权但未完成登记，法院执行前股权被查封，受让人可提起异议。类似于不动产领域的执行异议审查，法院会审查：受让人在冻结前是否已签订真实有效的股权转让合同；冻结前是否已取得股权（如是否记名、获取出资证明、参与分红等）；受让人是否已支付足额对价。若上述要件基本具备，且出让方在股权冻结前没有合理理由拒绝变更登记，则可认定股权已实际转移，受让人依法享有排除执行的权利。例如，当受让人足额支付对价且取得股东名册记载、公司出资证明、参与会议等实质性权益时，法院一般支持其排除对该股权的执行；若仅支付部分对价，法院通常要求补足余款后才能认定其权益完全转移。

综上所述，股权执行中的异议审查强调事实调查，核心在于“实质取得”和“对价支付”两个条件，同时尊重程序公正，综合衡量申请执行人的善意信赖。

In the case No. 1863 of the first instance of the people in (2022) Ji 0203, after the equity of 82.5% of a company held by the person subject to execution Jiang was executed, the company increased its capital through the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders during the freeze period, resulting in a decrease in Jiang's shareholding ratio to 23.57%. The applicant, Sun, requested to confirm that the capital increase resolution was invalid in accordance with Article 8, Paragraph 3 of the Equity Execution Regulations. The court held that although the capital increase resolution did not immediately change the company's assets, the content of the right to freeze equity had undergone substantial changes, and the defendant and the investor had malicious collusion. According to Article 154 of the Civil Code and Article 22 of the Company Law, the capital increase resolution was ruled invalid and Jiang's original equity ratio was restored. This case shows that if the resolution of the shareholders' meeting during the freeze period seriously damages the equity rights and interests of the person subject to execution, it can be confirmed as invalid through litigation, so as to protect the applicant's execution interests.

In the case No. 58 of Su 1182 Xingchu (2018), the purpose of freezing equity is to keep the content of the subject right unchanged, and prohibit the person subject to execution from disposing of the frozen equity or obtaining dividends and other income, so as to prevent the equity value from being lost or depreciated. The court held that once the equity is frozen, any act that causes changes in the "content of rights" of the equity (such as increasing capital and expanding shares to dilute shares) will harm the interests of creditors and should be regarded as improper behavior. However, in practice, some courts have different views on whether the company's capital increase affects the freezing effect. If the change in the share ratio caused by the increase in registered capital does not necessarily lead to value depreciation, the court will support the company to complete the capital increase registration in accordance with the law. Therefore, the court's assessment of the impact of the company's behavior after the freeze is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and needs to be comprehensively judged in combination with the purpose of the freeze and the actual situation of the company.

For the issue of equity contribution responsibility after execution, although Article 14 of the Regulations does not specifically define it, the Company Law and relevant judicial interpretations have made it clear. The Supreme Court clarified that if a shareholder transfers equity that has been subscribed but has not reached the contribution period, the transferee shall bear the obligation to pay, and the transferor shall only bear supplementary responsibility if the transferee fails to pay. In practice, for example, in the process of litigation execution, if it is found that the equity of the person subject to execution still has unpaid capital contributions, the court will indicate the subscribed/paid-up amount in the auction announcement and remind the bidders to be informed, so as to ensure the recovery of capital contributions in accordance with the provisions of the Company Law. For example, in the case No. 11692 of Su 01 Minzhong (2021), the court held that the actual investor was also at fault for the occurrence of the loss, and should bear part of the loss according to the principle of comparative fault, and clarified the risk warning responsibility to the person outside the case.

The above cases show that the equity execution trial logic is usually close to equity value protection: on the one hand, it ensures that the applicant restricts the status of the subject right from being transferred or depreciated through freezing; on the other hand, it takes into account the rights and interests of the person subject to execution and other shareholders. The judgment also emphasizes procedural justice, such as whether the freezing notice and the notice of the right of first refusal are timely, and whether the defense of the person outside the case is supported by conclusive evidence, which may become the focus of the dispute.

In equity execution, there are also some special circumstances that need to be analyzed according to specific issues:

State-owned equity has special regulatory requirements. Some argue that Article 54 of the Enterprise State-owned Assets Law should exclude online auctions. However, judicial practice tends to apply online judicial auctions to maintain full bidding in the open market. As mentioned above, online auctions are in line with the principles of openness and fairness of state-owned assets and are not prone to private loss. Therefore, the court can normally initiate online judicial auction procedures for state-owned equity without the need for separate property rights transaction methods.

Article 10 of the Regulations allows the person subject to execution to apply for self-disposal of the frozen equity, but it must meet one of the two conditions of "agreed by the applicant for execution and other known execution creditors" or "the disposal price is sufficient to pay off the debt", and be carried out after approval by the court, and the court must control the disposal price and supervise the completion within the prescribed time limit. In practice, self-disposal is common in cases where the debtor intends to quickly dispose of equity to raise funds to repay debts. This system improves the flexibility of disposal, but the court needs to strictly review the opinions of creditors and control the flow of disposal proceeds.

For equity that has not been fully contributed as agreed in the contract or has not reached the contribution date stipulated in the articles of association, the person subject to execution sometimes claims that it should not be auctioned. According to Article 14 of the Regulations, the people's court shall not support the request to suspend the equity auction in the case of "the person subject to execution has not performed or fully performed the obligation of capital contribution" or "the subscribed capital has not reached the contribution period". That is to say, even if the person subject to execution has not paid the capital contribution in full on schedule, the equity can still be auctioned according to law. The auction announcement shall specify the subscribed amount, paid-up amount and contribution period of the equity, and the relevant parties shall perform the obligation of capital contribution in accordance with the regulations after the transaction. For possible capital contribution disputes after the auction, the company may claim that the transferor or transferee shall bear the capital contribution responsibility in accordance with Article 18 of the Interpretation III of the Company Law. At the same time, Article 88 of the new Company Law clarifies the responsible subject after the transfer of equity that has not reached the contribution period. The court shall combine the spirit of the new law when enforcing it, and if necessary, list the equity transferee as the person subject to execution and add its responsibility.

For restricted shares or equity that needs to be transferred with prior approval, Article 15 of the Regulations requires the court to specify the qualification conditions of the bidders in the auction announcement, and the bidders shall go through the approval procedures afterwards, otherwise the transaction will be revoked. In judicial practice, if the buyer knows that he is not qualified before the auction and still bids, and delays in going through the approval procedures after the transaction, the court may take measures such as confiscating the deposit, and may rule to re-auction to maintain the seriousness of the procedure and the fairness of the bidding.

Although the current legal framework is relatively complete, there are still areas for improvement in specific implementation. In order to improve the efficiency and fairness of equity execution, the author puts forward the following suggestions:

Clarify the execution principles of equity held on behalf: In response to the dispute between the nominal shareholder and the actual investor in the lawsuit against execution objection, we can refer to the ideas of Article 119 of the Minutes of the National Civil and Commercial Trial Conference (Draft for Solicitation of Comments) to formulate unified standards and clarify the objective conditions for the actual investor to exclude execution and the boundaries of the protection of bona fide creditors in the absence of another effective judgment proving the situation. If it can be clarified that "the party that actually obtains the equity enjoys priority protection" or the allocation of the burden of proof is set, it will help to unify the trial and prevent abuse.

Strengthen the mechanism for obtaining assessment data: It is recommended that legislation or regulations further refine the court's authority to obtain assessment data, such as establishing a special channel for the court to directly obtain the company's financial information from industry and commerce, taxation and other departments, or requiring the court to simultaneously obtain accounting statements, audit reports, etc. at the freezing ruling stage to reduce the resistance in the assessment stage.

优化拍卖组织与交易规则：可探索股权拍卖前的“竞价底价审批”机制，即拍卖前由法院或专家机构评估并公布较为确定的保留价上下区间，提高拍卖透明度并吸引竞买人；完善股东优先购买权程序，例如建立专门登记平台，以便其他股东及时行使权利；加大对股权拍卖结果跟踪，如要求拍卖后买受人及时履行出资义务并向法院报告等。

信息公开与协作机制：强化执行法院与公司登记、国资、税务等机关的信息协作。可以考虑建立全国统一的股权执行信息公示平台，由法院将冻结、拍卖等信息同步公示给相关部门和社会公众，便于监督和查询。同时，对于股权司法保全和执行措施，可与现行股东名册制度衔接，避免重复登记和查询成本。