Not long ago, a set of judicial data released by the Supreme People's Court attracted attention: in 2024, courts across the country added 2.457 million new cases to the list of untrustworthy executees, a year-on-year decrease of 23.4%; 2,821,000 cases returned to the market through credit repair, an increase of 35.4% over the previous year. This is the first time that the number of people on the list has declined since the implementation of the untrustworthy executee list system. In the first three quarters of this year, another 1.97 million people across the country returned to the market through credit repair. Does the decline in the number of people on the untrustworthy list mean a weakening of enforcement? The answer is no; on the contrary, it is a reflection of improved governance accuracy. On the one hand, distinguishing between the malicious loss of trust of “having money and no money to pay back” and the temporary disability of “having no money to pay back,” and focusing the punishments on a small number of acts that evade execution, evade execution, and resist execution is an inevitable requirement for strict and impartial administration of justice. On the other hand, bailing out “honest and unfortunate” executioners and opening up credit repair channels not only maintained the rigid undertone of judicial authority, but also unleashed the humanistic care of system implementation, demonstrating the warmth and wisdom of our country's administration of justice that is both strong and gentle. Punishment is not the goal, but rather establishes a clear direction of “trustworthiness benefits, loss of trust is limited”, so that everyone is afraid to lose trust, must not lose trust, is unwilling to lose trust, and actively repair credit after losing trust.

Not long ago, a set of judicial data released by the Supreme People's Court attracted attention: in 2024, courts across the country added 2.457 million new cases to the list of untrustworthy executees, a year-on-year decrease of 23.4%; 2,821,000 cases returned to the market through credit repair, an increase of 35.4% over the previous year. This is the first time that the number of people on the list has declined since the implementation of the untrustworthy executee list system. In the first three quarters of this year, another 1.97 million people across the country returned to the market through credit repair. Does the decline in the number of people on the untrustworthy list mean a weakening of enforcement? The answer is no; on the contrary, it is a reflection of improved governance accuracy. On the one hand, distinguishing between the malicious loss of trust of “having money and no money to pay back” and the temporary disability of “having no money to pay back,” and focusing the punishments on a small number of acts that evade execution, evade execution, and resist execution is an inevitable requirement for strict and impartial administration of justice. On the other hand, bailing out “honest and unfortunate” executioners and opening up credit repair channels not only maintained the rigid undertone of judicial authority, but also unleashed the humanistic care of system implementation, demonstrating the warmth and wisdom of our country's administration of justice that is both strong and gentle. Punishment is not the goal, but rather establishes a clear direction of “trustworthiness benefits, loss of trust is limited”, so that everyone is afraid to lose trust, must not lose trust, is unwilling to lose trust, and actively repair credit after losing trust.