In recent years, there are more and more cases of enforcing creditor's rights by freezing or deducting deposits in the execution procedure. In practice, outsiders and executors often raise objections on the grounds that frozen funds are used as pledge, renovation and other special funds, and request to lift the freeze or get priority compensation. In the enforcement cases handled by the people's courts, the vast majority of cases are aimed at realizing the creditors' monetary claims. In the case of enforcement of monetary claims, there are generally two stages, that is, first freeze or deduct the deposit of the executed person in the financial institution, and then pay the frozen or deducted deposit to the applicant. In recent years, in the execution procedure, there are more and more cases of enforcing creditor's rights by freezing and deducting deposits, and the situation is becoming more and more complicated, which has brought many new problems to the execution work. What is more prominent is that outsiders and executors often raise objections on the grounds that frozen funds are used as pledge guarantee, renovation and other special funds, and request to lift the freeze or give priority to compensation. Based on the relevant judicial interpretation and the newly revised civil procedure law, the author gives his own views on the legal application of the people's court to enforce the above-mentioned funds. I. Understanding and Application of Article 85 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee Law when freezing or deducting the deposits of the person subjected to execution in financial institutions Article 85 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Guarantee Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that after the debtor or a third party designates its funds in the form of special accounts or deposits, it will be transferred to the creditor for possession as a guarantee for the creditor's rights. When the debtor fails to perform the debt, the creditor can use the money to get the priority. This article is a confirmation of the effectiveness of money as a special movable property as the object of pledge and the priority of compensation. In judicial practice, we often face two problems: first, whether funds can be frozen or deducted; The second is whether the fund can fight against the application executor. Some comrades think that because of the pledge guarantee, funds cannot be frozen or deducted. The author thinks that according to Article 2 18 of the newly revised Civil Procedure Law, the people's court can freeze the above-mentioned funds of the person subjected to execution (the debtor or the third party). The question is, who should be the executor and pledgee when deducting funds? For example, in the case of enforcing A as the executor of the application, the court verified that the executor B (developer) had funds in Bank C, so it frozen and planned to deduct the funds. At this point, the outsider Bank C raised an objection on the spot, arguing that the executed person B signed a personal housing mortgage loan contract with the buyer D, and agreed that B would voluntarily act as a third person as the guarantor of the buyer D, so as to ensure that D would fulfill its repayment obligations to Bank C on time. If D breaches the contract, B is willing to use a certain proportion of funds (that is, frozen funds) as pledge guarantee, which takes precedence over C. At the same time, both parties also signed a pledge contract to deposit the funds enforced by the court into the special deposit account agreed by both parties, that is, the fund account that the court has frozen and intends to deduct. On this basis, the outsider Bank C requested the court to lift the freezing measures, saying that if it was forcibly deducted, it would have the priority to be compensated for the funds. At this point, the question of whether the defense of Bank C can resist the creditor's rights of the application executor A appears. The author thinks that money, as a special movable property, can of course set a security interest. According to the provisions of the Property Law, the change of property right in money takes possession and delivery as its publicity mode, the holder of money as the right holder of money, and the delivery of money as the transfer of rights, which is no different from ordinary movable property. Money is a special thing. Once possessed, it is owned. The principle of chattel pledge is that pledge only transfers possession, not ownership. It is against the pledge principle to transfer possession with money as pledge. But if money is specified, it can be used as the subject matter of pledge. The contract law has the principle of "the object of the contract is not specific, and the contract is not established", and the pledge after the money is specific conforms to the legal characteristics of the pledge right. Therefore, the forms of delivery are deposit, deposit, etc. It can be confirmed as pledge. But whether it belongs to the pledge of creditor's rights or chattel depends on the specifics. Money-specific, belonging to chattel pledge; If the money is not specific, it belongs to the pledge of creditor's rights. The execution objection of the outsider Bank C's request for lifting the freeze cannot be established, but the execution objection of its request for priority payment of funds is established. At this time, there are two situations for compulsory deduction of funds. If the outsider (pledgee) of the case still has the surplus after the priority payment of Bank C, it can be deducted, and the remaining money will be paid to the application executor A after the priority payment of Bank C.. If the outsider (pledgee) Bank C has no possibility after being given priority, the execution is useless, and the significance of deduction will be lost. At the same time, it should also be clear that if the court finds that the above-mentioned funds do not meet the requirements of specialization, that is, there is neither a written contract nor a special account for the transfer and occupation of funds, then the behavior of Bank C does not meet the requirements of pledge specialization, and its execution objection should be rejected according to law. At this time, not only can the funds not be deducted, but other rights subjects can't fight against the application executor, so the court should pay the funds to the application executor A in time. Of course, if the outsider C Bank refuses to accept the rejection ruling, it can raise an objection to the court according to Article 204 of the newly revised Civil Procedure Law. Second, when freezing the funds or creditor's rights of the person subjected to execution, in judicial practice, sometimes the application executor is the defendant or the person subjected to execution in another case, and the execution court is executing its monetary creditor's rights or the executed funds to the court account, and the relevant court requests the execution organ to preserve the creditor's rights or funds in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, or other people's courts request assistance in preserving the creditor's rights or funds in accordance with the notice of assistance in execution. In this respect, for example, if A is the person subjected to execution applied by a court, he is also the defendant in another case of our court or the defendant in another case of B court, what should be done? The author believes that at this time, the identity of the executive organ has changed from the executor to the assistant executor. Now that he has become an assistant executor, he should fulfill this obligation of assisting execution in a timely manner in accordance with Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 1 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Seizure, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Execution of People's Courts (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions on Seizure and Freezing). In assisting execution, when freezing the above-mentioned property, should the assistance execution between the trial court of the same people's court and the executing agency or between different people's courts be bound by the time limit? There are differences of opinion between theory and practice on this issue. Some scholars believe that there should be no time limit, because the enforcement court is not really assisting the person subjected to execution at this time. Some scholars believe that there should be a time limit. Article 29 of the Provisions on Attachment, Seizure and Freezing stipulates that the time limit for the people's court to freeze the bank deposits and other funds of the person subjected to execution shall not exceed six months, and the time limit for freezing other property rights shall not exceed two years. The time limit for continuing to freeze shall not exceed half of the time limit specified in the preceding paragraph. Article 30 of the Regulations also stipulates that if the freezing period expires and the people's court fails to go through the extension procedures, the freezing effect will be eliminated. In practice, some courts seized the property of the person subjected to execution and did not take further enforcement measures, resulting in the long-term seizure of the property. This situation is not conducive to creditors' realization of creditor's rights, and it is also not conducive to giving full play to the utility of property, realizing the circulation of property, and wasting social wealth. In this regard, the provisions on seizure, seizure and freezing stipulate different seizure and freezing periods for different properties for the first time. Combined with the above provisions, it shows that the property during the freezing period includes bank deposits, other funds and creditor's rights and other property rights. Although the funds of the person subjected to execution in the people's court account are not bank deposits, they should belong to other funds, and Article 29 of the Provisions on Attachment, Seizure and Freezing has no proviso that the people's court shall assist in execution. Therefore, the author believes that the enforcement assistance between the trial court and the enforcement agency of the same people's court and between different people's courts should also be bound by the freezing period. After receiving the Notice of Assistance in Execution, the executing organ shall immediately freeze the property that the person subjected to execution is executing or has executed the application, and apply different time limits according to the specific contents and matters of the Notice of Assistance in Execution. According to the provisions of Article 29 of the Regulations on the Freezing of Seizure and Seizure, the period for freezing funds is six months, and the period for freezing creditor's rights and other property rights is two years. At the expiration of the time limit, if the court of first instance or the trial court of other people's courts fails to go through the formalities for renewing the freeze with the execution court, the freezing effect will be extinguished. If the freezing procedure is re-executed, the freezing effect should be maintained. Three. In the judicial practice of freezing and deducting deposits, we often encounter such a problem, that is, the people's court freezes the funds deposited in the general deposit account according to law, and the executed person objects to this, thinking that the frozen funds belong to special funds and requests to lift the freezing measures. In this regard, the author believes that in enforcement, the people's court should judge the deposit nature of enterprises by the purpose of deposit and the type of account. Therefore, according to the specific purpose of the deposit, a special account should be set up in accordance with Article 13 of the Measures for the Administration of RMB Bank Settlement Accounts of the People's Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as the Settlement Measures), and special management and payment should be strictly implemented. Otherwise, it should be recognized as general liquidity and can be frozen and deducted. First of all, special funds refer to special funds with specific purposes. Combined with the settlement method, special funds should include fifteen funds, including capital construction funds, repair funds, securities trading settlement funds, futures trading settlement funds, trust funds, housing funds, social security funds and other funds that need special management and use. Settlement Measures Articles 11 to 15 divide bank settlement accounts into four categories, namely, basic deposit account, general deposit accounts, special deposit accounts and temporary deposit accounts. Secondly, Article 19 of the Settlement Measures stipulates that depositors who apply for opening a special deposit account shall present to the bank the supporting documents and account opening registration certificate stipulated by basic deposit account. Among them, the basic construction fund, renovation fund, housing fund and social security fund are approved by the competent department; Securities trading settlement funds shall be certified by securities companies or securities management departments; Other funds that need special management and use according to regulations shall be issued by relevant laws, regulations or relevant documents of government departments. Special deposit accounts are used to handle the receipt and payment of various special funds. Therefore, according to the specific purpose of the deposit, special funds should be deposited in a special account for management and payment.