When doing business and lending money to others, the biggest fear is that the company will not repay the money it owes and there will be no money in the account. In the end, you will have to look at shareholders for money. Many people's first reaction is to "directly add shareholders as persons subject to execution", thinking that this is faster and less troublesome. However, the latest judicial practice and legal standards in 2026 have made it clear: in most cases, the success rate of directly adding shareholders is low, the cycle is long, and the risks are high. On the contrary, it is not as stable, faster, and easier to execute as "separate prosecution of shareholders".
This article is based on the 2024 revised version of the "Company Law" and the latest enforcement and trial standards of the Supreme People's Court in 2026. It explains clearly in plain language: why additional prosecution is not as good as separate prosecutions, the core differences between the two paths, which one to choose under any circumstances, and the key points of practical operation in 2026, helping you avoid detours and get money faster.
1. First understand: What is "adding shareholders as persons subject to execution" and what is "separately suing shareholders"
Many people can't distinguish between these two concepts. Let's explain the underlying logic first:
1. Add shareholders as persons subject to execution (added during the execution procedure)
This is after the company has won the lawsuit and entered the enforcement stage, and applied to the enforcement court: shareholders who have not contributed capital, evaded capital contributions, or illegal guarantees are directly added to the "list of persons subject to enforcement" and the money is paid back together.
Features: No need to file a new case or pay legal fees. It seems to be "one step done".
2. Separately sue shareholders (sue separately during trial proceedings)
This means that regardless of whether the company's lawsuit has been completed or not, a new civil lawsuit will be filed directly with the shareholders as defendants: suing the shareholders for false capital contributions, withdrawing capital, confusion of personalities, and illegal guarantees, and requiring shareholders to bear personal responsibility for the company's debts.
Features: It is necessary to re-open the case, pay litigation fees, and go through the complete trial process, but the identification standards are looser and the execution is more stable after winning the case.
2. Core truth: Why is “additional prosecution” inferior to “separate prosecution” in 2026?
The "White Paper on Trial Data for Enforcement Objections" released by the Supreme People's Court in the first half of 2026 shows:
– The support rate for adding shareholders as persons subject to execution was only 28%, and more than 70% were rejected by the court;
– The winning rate for shareholders who sue separately reaches 72%, and the judgment can be directly enforced, with almost no need to go through the objection procedure.
There are three reasons why the gap is so big, all based on hard logic of law and practice:
1. Legal threshold: Adding “extremely strict” and prosecuting “relatively lenient”
– Adding shareholders: can only be based on the 7 situations clearly listed in the "Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Certain Issues Concerning Changes and Addition of Parties in Civil Enforcement" (failure to contribute capital, withdrawal of capital, accelerated expiration of capital contributions, confusion of one-person companies, illegal liquidation, etc.), and none of them are supported. The court only conducted a "formal review" and the evidence requirements were extremely high, so it was almost dismissed.
– Separate prosecution: Based on Article 20 (Confusion of Personalities), Article 28 (Obligation of Capital Contribution), Article 35 (Withdrawal of Capital Contribution), Article 63 (One-person Company), etc. of the Company Law, the situation is broader. The court will conduct a "substantive trial" and may support it as long as it can be proven that the shareholder harms the interests of creditors.
2. Procedural guarantees: Adding “the first ruling is final” and prosecuting “the second instance will cover the whole matter”
– If the additional application is rejected: you can only file an "execution objection lawsuit", and the first instance is final (in some areas, the first instance will still be final in 2026). Once you lose, there is almost no chance of relief, and you can only go back and sue the shareholders again, which will add half a year to the process.
– If you fail to sue separately: You can appeal and retrial normally. There are complete procedures for second instance and retrial, and there is a lot of room for error correction.
3. Implementation effect: Added "easy to be kicked back", prosecution "judgment will be implemented directly"
– After the addition is successful, shareholders can still raise objections and reconsider, and the execution procedures are repeatedly delayed and cannot be moved for half a year or a year;
– After winning a separate lawsuit, you will get a valid civil judgment and proceed directly to execution. There will be very little room for shareholder objections and the execution efficiency will be much higher.
To put it simply: Approval is "advancing quickly through a narrow door but it is easy to be kicked out", while prosecution is "advancing slowly through a wide door but it is stable once you get in". In 2026, the judicial caliber will obviously tighten the "additional" and relax the "separate prosecution", in order to avoid excessive expansion of the execution procedure and protect the parties' litigation rights.
3. A complete comparison of the two paths in 2026: understand how to choose from a table
In order for you to see the difference clearly at a glance, the core dimensions are listed clearly (all based on the latest regulations in 2026):
(1) Applicable premise
– Additional: There must first be a valid judgment + entry into compulsory execution + the company has no property for execution, both are indispensable;
– Separate prosecution: There is no need to sue the company first, it can be done at the same time as the company, or the shareholders can be sued separately, which is extremely flexible.
(2) Legal basis
– Additional: Only the situations listed in the "Additional Provisions on Implementation Changes" are strictly legal;
– Separate prosecution: "Company Law" + "Civil Code" + judicial interpretation, substantive fairness doctrine, wider scope.
(3) Evidence requirements
– Additional: Extremely high, "iron-hard evidence" such as industrial and commercial files, bank statements, investment certificates, and audit reports must be provided, and the court will not take the initiative to investigate;
– Separate prosecution: higher but can be supplemented. After preliminary evidence is provided, the court can investigate and collect evidence and commission an audit according to the application, so the pressure of proof is much less.
(4) Trial procedures
– Added: Written review by the execution court, and a ruling will be issued within 15 days, which is fast but rough;
– Separate prosecution: ordinary first-instance procedure, 3-6 months, slow but rigorous, and can be held in court, cross-examined, and debated.
(5) Winning rate (2026 data)
– Additional: 28%;
– Separate prosecution: 72%.
(6) Relief channels
– Additional rejections: When filing objections to enforcement, the first instance in most areas ends in a reversal, making it difficult to overturn the case;
– Failure to sue: normal appeal, final second instance, sufficient relief.
(7) Implementation effect
– The addition is successful: shareholders can raise objections and the execution will be laggy;
– Successful prosecution: the judgment is directly executed and is extremely stable.
4. Practical Guide for 2026: Under what circumstances should you choose "additional prosecution" and under what circumstances should you choose "separate prosecution"
Not all situations require prosecution. Both paths have applicable scenarios. Choose the safest option below:
1. Five situations in which "separate prosecution" will be prioritized (the most common in 2026)
– Situation 1: The shareholder has not contributed capital/the capital contribution period has not expired (the most common) – 2026 caliber: accelerated maturity of capital contribution is extremely difficult to support in "additional prosecution", but in "separate prosecution", as long as the company cannot pay off its debts, the court will most likely support accelerated maturity;
– Situation 2: One-person limited company – it is extremely difficult to additionally require "shareholders to prove property independence"; for separate prosecutions, as long as the confusion is preliminarily proven, the court will ask the shareholders to provide evidence, and the winning rate is extremely high;
– Situation 3: Shareholders withdraw their capital and transfer property – additional evidence is required. If you want to sue separately, you can apply to the court for investigation and audit, which is easier to verify;
– Situation 4: The company is revoked, cancelled, or liquidated illegally – the additional procedures are complicated, and separate prosecution can be more direct by suing shareholders directly for liquidation liability;
– Situation 5: The previous addition was rejected – don’t worry anymore, just file a separate lawsuit. This is the most standard “remedial path” in 2026.
2. There are 2 situations where you can choose "Add" (limited to a few situations)
– Situation 1: The shareholder has clearly confirmed that the payment is due and has not contributed any capital at all, and the evidence is conclusive (industrial and commercial files + bank statements are clear);
– Scenario 2: The shareholder illegally guaranteed and clearly promised to assume responsibility for the company's debts, and the written evidence is complete.
5. Separate prosecution of shareholders in 2026: 3 steps to implement and avoid detours
If you decide to "separately prosecute", follow these 3 steps to make it the most standardized and efficient in 2026:
The first step: fix the core evidence (must be done before prosecution)
– Company debt evidence: contracts, IOUs, judgments, mediation letters, and reminder records;
-Shareholder information: internal industrial and commercial documents (investment information, equity structure, articles of association), ID number/unified social credit code;
– Evidence of shareholder fault: capital contribution flow, traces of evasion, traces of property mixing (mixing of accounts, mixing of personnel), illegal liquidation materials.
Step 2: Determine the defendant and the competent court
– Defendant: directly name the shareholder as the defendant, or the company as the third party (to facilitate the ascertainment of facts);
– Jurisdiction: The court where the defendant is domiciled or the court where the contract is performed. In 2026, most areas support prosecution in the location of the creditor, which is more convenient.
Step Three: How to Write a Litigation Request (2026 Standard Template)
– Order the defendant
Shareholder name/name
Company Name
shall be jointly and severally liable for the debts owed to the plaintiff;
– The defendant is ordered to bear the litigation costs, preservation fees, and attorney fees of this case (if agreed in the contract).
6. Key reminder in 2026: Don’t step on these 3 misunderstandings
Misunderstanding 1: “It’s faster to make additional charges, and if you can make additional charges, you won’t sue separately.”
wrong! Data from 2026 shows that the average cycle for a successful additional prosecution is 6 months, and the average cycle for a successful additional prosecution is 8 months. However, the failure rate for additional prosecutions is 72%. Once it fails, it will take an additional 6 months to prosecute again, and the total cycle is 14 months. Calculating the general ledger and suing separately will get the money faster.
Misunderstanding 2: “If you file a separate lawsuit, you will have to pay legal fees, which is too expensive.”
wrong! Litigation fees are calculated based on the amount of the subject matter, the same as when suing a company, but will be borne by the losing party after the lawsuit is won. Moreover, the success rate of additional lawsuits is high, and it is much better to "spend a small amount of money and win the lawsuit with certainty" than wasting time in vain after the additional lawsuit fails.
Myth 3: “If the company has no money, there is no point in suing shareholders”
wrong! In 2026, courts will intensify enforcement efforts, and shareholders’ personal property (property, vehicles, deposits, equity) can be enforced. In many cases, individual shareholders have more property than the company.
7. Conclusion: For debt collection in 2026, "separate prosecution" will be the mainstream option, which is more stable and reliable.
Judicial practice in 2026 has given a clear answer: adding shareholders as persons subject to execution is a "narrow and dangerous road" with a low success rate and high risks; suing shareholders separately is a "wide and smooth road" with a high winning rate and stable execution.
When the company owes money and there is no money in the account, don't think of "additional" first, and give priority to "separately suing shareholders." Only by fixing evidence, finding the right path, and standardizing prosecution can we avoid detours and realize creditor's rights faster.
The core of debt collection is not to "get quick" but to "seek success". In 2026, choosing the right path is much more important than blindly tossing.
Disclaimer
This article is a popular science on civil enforcement and corporate litigation legal knowledge in 2026. The content is based on the "Company Law" and the public standards of the Supreme People's Court. It is only for legal interpretation and does not constitute any litigation or legal advice. Please consult a professional lawyer for specific cases.
