检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:汪家元[1]
出 处:《安徽行政学院学报》2015年第2期90-97,共8页Journal of Anhui Academy of Governance
摘 要:《行政处罚法》对违法所得没有明确的界定。不同执法部门基于其主管或行业部门关于行政处罚中"违法所得"不同认定标准对违法所得的认定结果必然各异,同时,这种差异在具体的司法裁判中亦表现明显。因此,为维护法律权威、彰显执法公平,应从法律层面对行政处罚中的违法所得及其认定标准做统一界定,注重没收违法所得与其他行政处罚方式的统一与协调,重构行政处罚中"违法所得"认定的立法模式。There's no clear definition about the illegal gains in the "law of administrative penalty". The different limiting standards about the "illegal gains" in the administrative penalties executed by different enforcement units based on respective competent authorities or industry sectors will surely cause different identification results about the illegal gains. At the same time, the difference also appears noticeable in the specific judicial decisions. Therefore, in order to maintain the authority of law, demonstrate the justice in the enforcement of law, we should have unified identification on the illegal gains in the administrative penalties and limiting standards from the legal level, pay attention to the unification and coordination between confiscating the illegal gains and other administrative penalty ways, reconstruct legislative pattern on the identification about the "illegal gains" in the administrative penalties.
分 类 号:D922.112[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.15