全文约20000字,阅读时间40分钟
一、引言
二、中国内地判决在美国承认与执行的法律框架
(一)联邦法层面
(二)州法层面
三、中国内地判决在美国承认与执行的现状
四、外国判决在美国的“本地化”:转换为本州判决
(一)申请承认判决
(二)另行起诉
五、申请执行判决
(一)录入判决(CPLR § 5203)
(二)资产调查与发现(CPLR § 5223, 5224)
(三)临时保全与冻结财产(CPLR § 5222)
(四)追缴(CPLR § 5225, 5227)
(五)签发执行令(CPLR § 5230)
(六)强制执行措施(CPLR § 5232)
六、结语
当前中美间经济贸易往来愈发频繁,随之产生的跨境判决承认与执行需求也显著上升。对于在中国内地胜诉的当事人而言,如果被告在美国有可供执行的资产,如何将中国法院作出的金钱给付判决在美国顺利承认并执行便成为关键问题。目前,在中美两国间无双边司法协助条约的情况下,中国判决需通过美国各州法院依据州法进行承认与执行,进而实现效力转换。
近年来已有多个中国内地判决在美国法院成功获得承认与执行,纽约州等主要资产集中地也更新立法,从制度层面提升了承认执行中国判决的可预期性。这彰显出美国司法系统对中国内地判决可执行性的认可。在此背景下,本文将聚焦中国内地金钱判决在美国承认与执行的法律框架,并以极具代表性的纽约州为例详细阐述其最新趋势、操作流程与实务要点,以期为中国内地当事人跨境债务追索提供更具可操作性的指引。
首先需要区分的是,外国判决的承认(recognition)与执行(enforcement/execution)是两个相互关联但不同的阶段。承认系指美国法院承认外国判决在其法域内的法律效力,相当于将外国判决转化为美国本土判决的过程;而执行则是在外国判决被转化为本州判决后,为实现判决债权而执行债务人财产的过程。因此,胜诉债权人首先要在美国法院取得承认裁定,使中国判决具有如同该州判决一样的结论效力和可执行性。随后,债权人申请执行判决,进而利用该州法律提供的各种强制执行手段实现对被执行人资产的追偿。
美国联邦立法与各州法律体系的划分是理解中国判决在美承认与执行的起点。美国并无联邦层面的统一外国判决承认法。当事人可依据多样性管辖向联邦法院提出执行请求,但根据《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》(Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “FRCP”)第六十九条的规定,联邦法院的金钱判决执行及相关辅助程序,原则上应当符合执行法院所在州的程序规定。[1]换言之,联邦法院执行外国判决时,适用执行地所属州的法律和程序。因此,无论当事人在联邦法院还是州法院提起申请,中国金钱判决的承认与执行都主要取决于相应州法规定的承认标准与执行程序。
1. 外国判决的承认
在州法院层面,承认外国判决的法律依据呈现出统一法与判例法并存的态势。目前全美有超过三分之二的州采用了统一法律框架,即《外国国家金钱判决承认统一法》(以下简称“统一法”)(Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, UFCMJRA)。该统一法有1962年和2005年两个版本,美国多州相继采纳了其中一个版本。以纽约州为例,该州早在1970年就通过《纽约民事诉讼法》(Civil Practice Law and Rules , “CPLR”)第五十三章实现了对1962版统一法规定的成文化。2021年,纽约州又通过立法修订,与最新的2005年统一法进行接轨。统一法的核心精神是在不违反该法规定的特定例外情形时,对他国法院作出的金钱给付判决予以承认,并赋予其如同本州判决的效力。2025年统一法更是对承认外国判决的先决条件、抗辩事由、举证责任、时效等问题作出了更加清晰可循的规定。
相较之下,少数未采纳统一法的州(如路易斯安那州、威斯康星州等)仍主要依据国际礼让原则(comity)以及普通法判例,在个案中由法院自行裁量是否承认外国判决。总体而言,美国各州普遍要求外国判决系关于金钱给付的最终判决,且判决的产生过程基本符合司法正义与程序正当原则。
2. 外国判决的执行
无论依据统一法规则还是判例法原则,只要一项外国判决被承认为美国本地判决后,其后续的强制执行便按照有关州执行本地判决的程序进行。例如,一项中国判决经纽约法院承认后即转换为纽约判决,享有与纽约州判决同等的效力,并可采取扣押、冻结、拍卖等纽约法律所允许的执行措施。纽约州判决执行的程序集中规定于CPLR第五十二章:金钱判决的执行(Enforcement of Money Judgments)。在纽约州取得承认裁定后,胜诉方即可依据CPLR第52章启动执行,并可同步运用信息披露与资产追踪措施,尽快锁定可供执行财产。
总体而言,目前中国内地金钱判决在美国的承认与执行态势良好,且呈现日益提升的趋势。在前述法律框架下,美国法院已经多次承认并执行中国民商事金钱给付判决,涉及纽约、伊利诺伊、加利福尼亚、密苏里等多州。笔者现结合典型案例,分析总结中国内地判决在美承认与执行的最新现状。
Shanghai Y R v. Maodong Xu, 203 A.D.3d 495, 160 N.Y.S.3d 874(Mem) (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
在本案中,纽约州上诉法院推翻了一审法院以“系统性欠缺正当程序”为由做出的驳回裁定,强调应围绕CPLR第5304条所列法定事由进行审查,并明确:不应当因中国司法制度与美国不同就否认其民商事判决的效力;对中国司法系统的笼统质疑不足以构成拒绝承认的当然理由。[2]这一案例表明,只要中国判决符合正当程序要求并在中国具备终局效力,在纽约州获得承认并进入执行程序具备现实可行性。
Tianzhu Coal Co Ltd Under Yaojie Coal And Elec Group v. Ma Ju, 2024 NY Slip Op 51069(U), Index No. 620508/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug 12, 2024)
本案中,被申请人以 “中国司法系统存在系统性不公”为由反对执行判决。虽然被告提交了多份批评相关制度的“专家证词”,但纽约法院在全面审查原审判决的终局性、可执行性、认证文件以及被申请人参与程序情况后,法院认定被告未能证明中国司法缺乏正当程序或公正法庭,命令被告支付判决金额。法院同时强调:承认执行的审查重点应为个案层面的程序与证据,而非概括性的质疑。
Northeast Securities Co Ltd v. Que Wenbin, H051832 (Cal. App. Jun 10, 2025)
本案中,位于吉林的DB证券公司在加州法院申请承认与执行吉林省高级人民法院判决,涉及2.948亿元人民币的股票质押回购贷款纠纷。被告以中国法院诉讼程序中的送达缺陷为由提出异议,请求法院拒绝承认与执行中国判决。加州初审和上诉法院均驳回了被告的论点,认定原判决诉讼程序中的相关送达已经满足了正当程序的要求。
总体而言,美国法院对中国判决的承认与执行,不仅便利了中国的胜诉债权人在美国进行追偿,而且有助于推动中美两国间司法的互惠互信。可以预见,随着中美两国间经济贸易深化与相关司法实践经验的积累,中国内地判决在美国法院的承认与执行将愈加常态化、高效化。下文中笔者将按照判决承认、判决执行、文书送达的顺序,详细梳理胜诉债权人实现判决债权的全流程并提出相关实务建议。
1. 申请承认的要件(CPLR § 5302)
CPLR § 5302: Applicability
(a)Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) of this section, the provisions of this article apply to a foreign country judgment to the extent that such judgment:
(1)grants or denies recovery of a sum of money; and
(2)under the law of the foreign country where rendered, is final, conclusive and enforceable even though an appeal therefrom is pending or it is subject to appeal.
(b)This article does not apply to a foreign country judgment, even if the judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, to the extent the judgment is:
(1)a judgment for taxes;
(2)a fine or penalty; or
(3)a judgment for divorce, support or maintenance, or other judgment rendered in connection with domestic relations.
(c)A party seeking recognition of a foreign country judgment has the burden of establishing that this article applies to the foreign country judgment.
法院只有在确认外国判决满足特定条件时,才会予以承认。CPLR第5302条规定了外国判决在纽约州获得承认的前提条件。一方面,外国判决必须是终局的、确定的并在做出地可执行的金钱给付判决。终局性意味着该判决已经最终定案;确定性意味着判决内容明确、金额具体;可执行性意味着该判决在作出国法律下具备执行效力(如未逾诉讼时效等)。另一方面,判决不涉及税款、刑事罚金、离婚、抚养、赡养等事项。简而言之,申请人只需要初步证明中国判决属于民商事金钱判决,最终定案,并在中国具有执行力。满足统一法对终局性与给付性的上述要求后,纽约法院将对是否承认判决展开进一步的审查。
2. 申请承认的方法(CPLR § 5303)
CPLR § 5303: Recognition Enforcement, and Proceedings
(b)If recognition of a foreign country judgment is sought as an original matter, the issue of recognition shall be raised by filing an action on the judgment or a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint seeking recognition of the foreign country judgment.
(c)If recognition of a foreign country judgment is sought in a pending action, the issue of recognition may be raised by counterclaim, cross-claim or affirmative defense.
根据CPLR第5303条规定,当事人可以通过对外国判决提起诉讼(action on the judgment),或以“简易判决替代起诉状”(motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint)的方式申请承认外国判决。在既有诉讼中,当事人还可通过反诉、交叉诉讼或积极抗辩等形式提出承认请求。除非存在CPLR第5304条中规定的拒绝承认事由,纽约法院应当(shall)对判决予以承认。
3. 拒绝承认的法定事由(CPLR § 5304)
CPLR § 5304: Grounds for Non-Recognition
(a)A court of this state may not recognize a foreign country judgment if:
(1)the judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law;
(2)the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or
(3)the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
(b)A court of this state need not recognize a foreign country judgment if:
(1)the defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend;
(2)the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case;
(3)the judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States;
(4)the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment;
(5)the proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be determined otherwise than by a proceeding in that court;
(6)in the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action;
(7)the judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering courts with respect to the judgment;
(8)the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law; or
(9)the cause of action resulted in a defamation judgment obtained in a jurisdiction outside the United States, unless the court before which the matter is brought sitting in this state first determines that the defamation law applied in the foreign court's adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by both the United States and New York constitutions.
(c)A party resisting recognition of a foreign country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for non-recognition stated in subdivision (a) or (b) of this section exists.
外国判决满足了前述第5302条规定的要件后,被执行人可以援引法定的不予承认事由提出抗辩。CPLR第5304条将不予承认外国判决的事由分为强制性与酌定性两类:
强制不承认事由
如果外国判决存在拒绝承认的下列法定事由,则纽约法院不得予以承认:(1)判决产生于一个不提供公正司法或正当程序的司法制度;(2)外国法院对被告缺乏人身管辖权(personal jurisdiction);(3)外国法院对案件缺乏标的管辖权(jurisdiction over the subject matter)。其中,第(1)项涉及对外国司法体系整体公正性的质疑,是较为严格且较少得到美国法院支持的抗辩理由。为使其抗辩成立,被执行人需证明中国法院所在的司法制度整体上不公正、不符合美国正当程序标准,这一主张在司法实践中上极少被支持。例如,在前述的2022年YR案中,纽约州上诉法院指出美国法院不应武断否定中国司法体系的程序正当性。鉴于被告在中国诉讼中有律师代理、享有陈述和上诉权利,上诉法院认定中国法院的程序符合正当法治要求,并据此推翻了一审判决。
酌定不承认事由
若外国判决符合下列情形,则纽约法院可以酌情拒绝承认判决:(1)被告在外国法院程序中未得到适当通知以致未能抗辩;(2)判决系通过欺诈手段获得,剥夺了败诉方充分抗辩的机会;(3)判决违反本州或美国的公共政策;(4)判决与先前的另一终局判决相冲突;(5)判决违背当事人约定的管辖协议;(6)作出判决的法院为严重不方便法院(seriously inconvenient forum)且单纯基于对被告的送达获得管辖权;(7)判决系在让人足以对法院在该案中裁判的廉正性产生重大怀疑的情形下作出的;(8)该特定判决的作出不符合正当程序要求;(9)该判决属于境外诽谤(defamation)判决,不符合美国或纽约的言论自由标准。
可以看出,上述抗辩事由大多针对具体案件程序或判决内容的瑕疵,而非外国整体司法制度。例如,债务人可主张判决因内容违反美国公共政策而不应予以承认。不过,美国法院对公共政策抗辩通常采取严格审查的标准,仅当外国判决的结果明显违背根本法律原则时才接受该抗辩。
此外,2005年统一法对承认外国判决程序中的举证责任进行了明确:申请方需证明判决符合承认的法定要件,而抗辩方承担证明存在拒绝承认事由的责任。整体而言,美国法院对外国判决的审查重点在于案件程序公正并符合基本法律政策,而非对案件实体进行重新审查。若申请方成功证明判决符合CPLR第5302条的基本要件,而抗辩方无法证明任一拒绝承认情形的存在,则法院应当按照规定尊重并承认该外国判决。
4. 申请承认的作用(CPLR § 5307)
CPLR § 5307: Effect of Recognition
(a)If the court, in a proceeding under section fifty-three hundred five of this article finds that the judgment is entitled to recognition under this article, then, to the extent that the foreign country judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, the foreign country judgment is:
(1)conclusive between the parties to the same extent as the judgment of a sister state entitled to full faith and credit in this state would be conclusive; and
(2)enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as a judgment rendered in this state.
根据CPLR第5307条规定,一旦纽约州法院在承认程序中认定外国判决符合承认条件,那么该判决中的金钱债权部分应当视同本州判决,并按照纽约州判决的方式执行。也就是说,经承认后的中国判决在法律效力上等同于纽约州法院判决,债权人可以根据纽约州法律采取相应执行措施。因此,申请承认是跨境执行的必要一步,目的是赋予中国判决在执行州的强制力,以启动后续的本地执行程序。
除了直接依据统一法申请承认之外,当事人还可以通过重新在美国提起普通诉讼的方式,实现中国判决的本地化。例如,当事人可以就中国判决所依据的原始基础法律关系(例如合同给付、侵权赔偿等),在纽约州另行提起给付之诉,请求法院判令债务人支付相应款项。在这种情形下,中国内地判决不再是申请承认的依据,而在新的诉讼程序中发挥债权凭据的作用,由美国法院对原债务重新进行判定。由此可见,另行起诉的流程与一般的美国民事诉讼类似,可能耗时较长,同时还需法院管辖权、有效送达等起诉条件。但在被执行人已在美国法院对申请人提起诉讼的情况下,申请人可以直接以提起反诉的方式请求承认,因此这一方式也有其用武之地。
总之,无论选择哪种申请承认的途径,当事人的本质目的都是获得一项与本州法院效力相同的判决,从而顺利进入执行阶段。因此,两种路径并无绝对的优劣之分,笔者建议申请人根据案件具体情况与财产所在州的法律规定,因案制宜选择最为简便有效的承认方式,为将来的执行提供有利条件。
通过判决承认程序将中国内地判决转化为美国本地判决后,胜诉债权人即拥有一项等同于本地判决的债权依据。然而,该本地判决所确立的债权并不会自动实现,后续的强制执行程序才是将金钱判决转化为现实赔付的关键步骤。因此,在获得美国法院的承认裁定后,当事人应当依照执行地的法律规定及时推进执行程序,善用各种执行手段以避免债务人转移资产,实现债权的真正落地。下文中笔者将以纽约州为例详细介绍执行判决的一般流程与注意事项。
CPLR § 5203: Priorities and Liens Upon Real Property
(a)Priority and lien on docketing judgment.
No transfer of an interest of the judgment debtor in real property, against which property a money judgment may be enforced, is effective against the judgment creditor either from the time of the docketing of the judgment with the clerk of the county in which the property is located until ten years after filing of the judgment-roll, or from the time of the filing with such clerk of a notice of levy pursuant to an execution until the execution is returned.
当外国判决被承认为本地判决后,债权人通常需要将该判决在书记官处正式登记(docket),使其产生法律效力。登记判决的一大重要作用是对被执行人的财产取得优先受偿地位。由CPLR第5203条(a)款规定可见,判决一经登记即对债务人在该州的不动产等产生司法留置(lien)效果,并进入公共记录,从而防止债务人在不通知债权人的情况下出售产权。此外,登记判决通常也是启动申请冻结、查询财产等后续执行动作的必要前提。因此,胜诉债权人应当在领取判决书副本后,尽快前往财产所在县的书记官处办理登记手续,使承认裁决进入正式档案,奠定执行基础。
CPLR § 5223: Disclosure
At any time before a judgment is satisfied or vacated, the judgment creditor may compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment, by serving upon any person a subpoena, which shall specify all of the parties to the action, the date of the judgment, the court in which it was entered, the amount of the judgment and the amount then due thereon, and shall state that false swearing or failure to comply with the subpoena is punishable as a contempt of court.
CPLR § 5224: Subpoena; Procedure
(a)Kinds and service of subpoena. Any or all of the following kinds of subpoenas may be served:
1. a subpoena requiring attendance for the taking of a deposition upon oral or written questions at a time and place named therein; or
2. a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of books and papers for examination at a time and place named therein; or
an information subpoena, accompanied by a copy and original of written questions and a prepaid, addressed return envelope.
金钱给付判决生效后,胜诉债权人首先面临的问题是如何查找债务人在美国境内可供执行的资产。对此,CPLR第5223与第5224条赋予债权人广泛的资产调查权,以发掘债务人的资产线索。条文规定:在判决完全清偿前,胜诉债权人可以就“与实现判决有关的一切事项”要求信息披露。也就是说,债权人不仅可以要求债务人披露自身财产线索,还能要求与债务人有关的第三方(如雇主、银行等)提供证词或文件。具体而言,债权人可采取的措施包括:要求被执行人或知情第三方宣誓作证(deposition),回答相关问题;要求提供财产文件(subpoena duces tecum),如银行单证、不动产登记资料等;发送财产问询(information subpoena),要求当事人列举资产信息等。
与诉讼中证据的可采性要求不同,资产信息披露的标准较为宽松,只要当事人请求的信息有助于揭示财产流向,法院通常倾向于支持。例如,申请人可以通过询问被执行人的雇主、亲属、债权人、商业伙伴等,了解其收入和资产状况;也可通过调查被执行人的银行流水,从而判断资金去向。值得注意的是,债务人有义务配合调查并如实披露财产信息,若其拒不配合或提供虚假信息,法院还可认定其藐视法庭。由此可见,充分利用CPLR规定的资产发现程序对于追踪债务人的在美资产至关重要。实践中,中国债权人应当借助多种手段,对债务人的财产线索进行合法充分调查,以锁定执行标的,为后续的具体执行措施做好准备。
CPLR § 5222: Restraining Notice
(b)Effect of restraint; prohibition of transfer; duration.
A judgment debtor or obligor served with a restraining notice is forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he or she has an interest, except as set forth in subdivisions (h) and (i) of this section, and except upon direction of the sheriff or pursuant to an order of the court, until the judgment or order is satisfied or vacated. A restraining notice served upon a person other than the judgment debtor or obligor is effective only if, at the time of service, he or she owes a debt to the judgment debtor or obligor or he or she is in the possession or custody of property in which he or she knows or has reason to believe the judgment debtor or obligor has an interest, or if the judgment creditor or support collection unit has stated in the notice that a specified debt is owed by the person served to the judgment debtor or obligor or that the judgment debtor or obligor has an interest in specified property in the possession or custody of the person served.
在初步掌握资产线索后,胜诉债权人通常会随即采取临时冻结措施,以防止被执行人转移或隐匿财产。根据CPLR第5222条规定,债权人可直接向债务人或其财产持有人送达限制通知(Restraining Notice),要求其不得出售、转让、处置或干涉特定财产。送达限制通知后,被通知方有义务将相应财产保持原状,不得支付给被执行人或做其他处置。若被通知方违反通知要求擅自转移资金,同样可被认定为藐视法庭并受到相应制裁。限制通知的优点在于简便快捷,无需法院预先批准,因此是债权人在美国执行判决时较为常用且有效的手段之一。
前述规定提示胜诉债权人,在掌握被执行人资产线索后,应当尽快采取临时保全措施,通过发送限制通知的方式冻结债权人名下资产,如要求银行冻结被执行人账户中相应存款等。同时,在发送限制通知时也需遵守正当程序要求。例如,债权人向债务人之外的第三方发送通知前应当尽可能确定财产所属,并准备证据证明其持有债务人资产,以防止错误冻结可能产生的法律责任。
在冻结债务人财产或查明其由第三方占有后,胜诉债权人需要进一步向法院申请追剿令(turnover order),从而令债务人将资产正式交付用于清偿判决债务。CPLR第5225和第5227条规定了两种追缴机制,二者的区别在于财产持有人的不同。
CPLR § 5225: Payment or Delivery of Property of Judgment Debtor
(a)Property in the possession of judgment debtor. Upon motion of the judgment creditor, upon notice to the judgment debtor, where it is shown that the judgment debtor is in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which he has an interest, the court shall order that the judgment debtor pay the money, or so much of it as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment, to the judgment creditor and, if the amount to be so paid is insufficient to satisfy the judgment, to deliver any other personal property, or so much of it as is of sufficient value to satisfy the judgment, to a designated sheriff.
(b)Property not in the possession of judgment debtor. Upon a special proceeding commenced by the judgment creditor, against a person in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which the judgment debtor has an interest, or against a person who is a transferee of money or other personal property from the judgment debtor, where it is shown that the judgment debtor is entitled to the possession of such property or that the judgment creditor's rights to the property are superior to those of the transferee, the court shall require such person to pay the money, or so much of it as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment, to the judgment creditor……
CPLR第5225条适用于财产被执行人自身或第三方持有的情形。若财产由当事人自身控制,胜诉债权人可根据(a)款规定提起动议(motion),请求法院命令债务人将其财产交出。若财产由第三方持有,则债权人可根据(b)款规定提起特别程序,申请法院命令该第三人向债权人移交财产。例如,若债权人发现被执行人名下的一批货物存放于仓库,其可申请追缴令要求仓库移交货物,或将货物变现清偿。对于债权人提出的申请,法院审查后若认定货物确属被执行人所有且无他人优先权,则会下令仓库在一定期限内将货物(或变价后的款项)移交债权人。
CPLR § 5227: Payment of Debts Owed to Judgment Debtor
Upon a special proceeding commenced by the judgment creditor, against any person who it is shown is or will become indebted to the judgment debtor, the court may require such person to pay to the judgment creditor the debt upon maturity, or so much of it as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment, and to execute and deliver any document necessary to effect payment; or it may direct that a judgment be entered against such person in favor of the judgment creditor.
CPLR第5227条适用于第三方对被执行人负有到期债务的情形。例如,若他人欠付被执行人货款或未清偿到期借款,则胜诉判决人可依据第5227条提起特别程序,申请法院命令该第三人将本该支付给被执行人的款项直接支付给债权人。此种途径本质上是通过债权转让的方式,将被执行人对第三人的债权用于清偿其所负的判决债务。
CPLR § 5230: Executions
(b)Issuance. At any time before a judgment or order is satisfied or vacated, an execution may be issued from the supreme court, county court or a family court, in the county in which the judgment was first docketed, by the clerk of the court or the attorney for the judgment creditor as officer of the court, to the sheriffs of one or more counties of the state, directing each of them to satisfy the judgment or order out of the real and personal property of the judgment debtor or obligor and the debts due to him or her……
登记判决并明确被执行人资产后,胜诉债权人便可向法院书记官申请签发执行令(writ of execution)并交由执法官执行。CPLR第5230条规定了执行令的格式、内容、签发主体与授权主体等。可以将执行令理解为法院命令执法机构协助债权人扣押债务人财产的书面指示,执法官应当依据执行令对债务人财产进行后续的扣押(levy)等执行措施。与前文提及的限制通知不同,执行令的签发主体系官方而非当事人,且必须由执法机构予以执行,因此更具强制性。相比之下,前述的资产调查、冻结、追剿令等程序的目的更接近于为正式执行做好准备。可以说,执行令的签发是判决执行阶段的重要一环,是当事人实现胜诉判决权益的关键程序。
CPLR § 5232: Levy Upon Personal Property
(a)Levy by service of execution. The sheriff or support collection unit designated by the appropriate social services district shall levy upon any interest of the judgment debtor or obligor in personal property not capable of delivery, or upon any debt owed to the judgment debtor or obligor, by serving a copy of the execution upon the garnishee……The person served with the execution shall forthwith transfer all such property, and pay all such debts upon maturity, to the sheriff or to the support collection unit and execute any document necessary to effect the transfer or payment.
(b)Levy by seizure. The sheriff or support collection unit of the appropriate social services district shall levy upon any interest of the judgment debtor in personal property capable of delivery by taking the property into custody without interfering with the lawful possession of pledgees and lessees.
执行令签发后,执法官便可根据CPLR第5232条采取扣押、变现等操作,如从被冻结的银行账户中扣除款项、查封债务人的动产或不动产等。对于可交付动产,常以直接扣押为实现手段;对于不动产,应采取向房产登记处送达执行令的方式实现查封;对于应收款项等无形财产权益,则更多通过对第三方送达执行文书、冻结与追缴等方式实现。鉴于强制执行程序的重要性,在这一阶段,胜诉债权人应当积极配合执法官并提供必要费用(如预缴拍卖费等),以确保判决债权得以最终实现。
综上所述,中国内地金钱给付判决在美国的承认与执行,在制度层面已经形成了以州法为核心、操作流程清晰、执行工具体系成熟的可行路径:胜诉判决人可以通过执行程序实现外国判决的本地化,再通过执行州的强制执行程序实现判决权益落地。近期的承认案例也体现了美国司法系统对中国法治体系整体公正性的肯定,并在送达等关键问题上提供了更为明确的预期。
对于中美关系的未来,笔者持续看好。在中美交流持续深化与成功案例不断积累的趋势下,只要国内的债权人能够做到前期准备充分、执行州选择得当、送达与申请程序合规、证据链条完整,律师团队选择正确,那么实现跨境债务的追索并非不可能。随着将来统一法框架在美国更多州域的持续完善,中国内地判决在美承认与执行的案例也必将进一步增加,裁判标准的稳定性与可预期性也有望进一步加强,让我们共同拭目以待。
●参考文献:
特别声明:
大成律师事务所严格遵守对客户的信息保护义务,本篇所涉客户项目内容均取自公开信息或取得客户同意。全文内容、观点仅供参考,不代表大成律师事务所任何立场,亦不应当被视为出具任何形式的法律意见或建议。如需转载或引用该文章的任何内容,请私信沟通授权事宜,并于转载时在文章开头处注明来源。未经授权,不得转载或使用该等文章中的任何内容。
本文作者

感谢实习生颜蕙珂对本文的贡献
%%争议解决%% $$汤健翔$$
大成能为您做什么?
联系我们 +