Is it legal to punish Lao Lai for implicating his children? Is it fair to their children?

There is no concept of involvement and stealing. I think it is completely reasonable for the state to take some restrictive measures against the faithless, commonly known as Lao Lai. Lao Lai is a human being and has human rights, but the creditors cheated by Lao Lai are also human beings. They lent money to Lao Lai reasonably and legally, but they all refused to pay their debts, and they were able to pay them back.

Lao Lai's children should enjoy a good education, but the tuition fees of these deceived children have not yet been settled. It is god's mercy that laolai people use other people's money to realize their children's high-grade education and high-quality life. But where is justice in letting the real owners of wealth struggle? I think it is really necessary to implicate them and make them have nowhere to live. The price of becoming them is huge. Only in this way can we eliminate the breeding ground for them, make honesty and trustworthiness the norm, return to people's daily lives, and let liars and old lai have nowhere to hide and live.

The biggest joke in the world is that when he plunders and swindles other people's money, he is unscrupulous and unscrupulous, and laws and regulations are equivalent to air and boldness to him.

When the law punishes him, he will tell you what is fair and unfair, legal and illegal.

Lao Lai, as the name implies, is a ruffian rogue. He borrows money from others' common heart, and some even maliciously borrows money, and then transfers the assets under his own name to the names of his children. The only purpose is to find a way to owe money and not pay it back. I can't help it by myself.

Since the reform and opening up, the economic structure has been complicated, illegal fund-raising fraud has occurred frequently, and funds have come and gone in various ways. Criminals rack their brains to misappropriate other people's money, and even embezzle money to enrich themselves. It is common for a person to take risks for the benefit of the whole family.

A country ruled by law, governing the country by law. Combined with the particularity of illegal crimes in the new period, debtors who borrow maliciously and beneficiaries who transfer their property according to law certainly have the right of recourse and the right to restrict the execution of consumption.

Otherwise, isn't the law useless?