Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine

Du Wen

doi:doi:10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15

| Peer-Reviewed

Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine

Du Wen

Published in Humanities and Social Sciences (Volume 10, Issue 2)

Received: 18 February 2022 Accepted: 10 March 2022 Published: 18 March 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

For the purpose of enhancing sanction and deterrence effects, many scholars support the establishment of punitive damages involving public welfare in china. Because this legislative proposition involves a paradox and many conundrums yet to be resolved, this paper holds a negative attitude towards it. As an alternative, China can use the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to fully protect public welfare. Theoretically, civil public interest litigation (CPIL) should be divided into two categories: the pure civil public interest litigation (PCPIL) and non pure civil public interest litigation (Non-PCPIL). The former consists of CPIL involving indivisible public interests and CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests; The latter consists of diffusive CPIL and composite CPIL. In terms of law application, there is an “overlapping relationship” between CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests and composite CPIL. Only PCPIL involves the question of whether to use the proposed system of punitive damages for harmed public interest, or the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to attain the legal effects of sanction and deterrence. The so-called improved administrative fines is actually an administrative penalty combination composed of large sum fines, continuously calculated daily fines, the system of double fines, the system of both fines and confiscation as well as other administrative penalty measures. As the premise of offsetting administrative fines and criminal fine penalty, the connecting mechanism between administrative laws and criminal laws is actually a two-way lane - administrative punishment before the related criminal proceedings and administrative punishment after the related criminal proceedings. In terms of those two ways, their offsetting of administrative fines against the related criminal fine penalty must follow different principles and specific requirements. In order to fully protect the related public welfare, there should be exceptions to the principle of severe punishments absorbing the light punishments. In China, the legal protection of public welfare is extremely complex. In terms of the identification of the legal liabilities of the law-breakers, legislators and law enforcers should comprehensively consider the relationship and coordination among civil liabilities, administrative liabilities and criminal liabilities.

Published in	Humanities and Social Sciences (Volume 10, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15
Page(s)	65-82
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Substitutions for PCPIL Punitive Damages, Grouping of CPIL, Improved Administrative Fine, Set-off Between Administrative, Criminal Fine

References

[1]	Zhang Xudong, Zheng Feng (2019). Research on the Standardized Application of Punitive Damages in Consumer Civil Public Interest Litigation: Starting from a Series of Public Interest Cases of Punitive Compensation of the Consumers’ Committee of Guangdong Province. Academic Exploration, 11, 123.
[2]	Xu Yanhong (2021). Tang Weijian, a member of the CPPCC National Committee, suggested to improve the incidental PCPIL attached to criminal cases. CPPCC Daily, March 23.
[3]	Zhang Bing (2021). Some Suggestions on Handling Incidental PCPIL Attached to Criminal Cases. Procuratorate Daily, March 16.
[4]	Wang Ke (2021). An Analysis of Related Issues about Administrative Litigation with Collateral Civil Litigations about Public Interest. Journal of Jin Ning Normal University, 1, 75.
[5]	Chen Lamei (2019). Application of the Principle of Proportionality in the Consideration of Administrative Fines. the Journal of Tian Shui Administration Institute, 5, 109.
[6]	Zhang Haizhu (2019). Discussion on Civil Public Interest Litigation of Punitive Compensation Initiated by Procuratorial Organs. Social Scientist, 7, 114.
[7]	Xie Dengke (2020). The Dilemma and Outlet of the Application of Criminal Fine for Environmental Crime – An Empirical Analysis Based on 209 Decided Cases in Three Northeastern Provinces. Cognition and Practice, 5, 60.
[8]	Zhang Xudong, Zheng Feng (2019). Research on the Standardized Application of Punitive Damages in Consumer Civil Public Interest Litigation: Starting from a Series of Public Interest Cases of Punitive Compensation of the Consumers’ Committee of Guangdong Province. Academic Exploration, 11, 125.
[9]	Zhu Qiuying (2020). Research on Anti-Monopoly Administrative Penalty System in China. Legal & Economy, 11, 32.
[10]	Ying Songnian, Feng Jian (2021). The Dilemma of Administrative Fine System and Its Solutions –Taking Securities Administrative Penalty as an Example. The Seeker, 1, 150.
[11]	Zhang Hong (2020). Research on the Ways of Setting Administrative Penalties. China Legal Science, 5, 84.
[12]	Zhang Bufeng, Zhang Haotian (2021). How to Distinguish PCPIL Punitive Damages from Administrative Fine. Procuratorate Daily, May 25.
[13]	Fang Zhaoming (2019). Thoughts on the Offsetting of Administrative Responsibility Against Criminal Responsibility. Journal of Hubei University of Economics (Humanities and Social Sciences), 11, 29.
[14]	Chen Taiqing (2016). Inquiries Into the Limits of Administrative Fines. Jiang Su Social Science, 1, 104.
[15]	Shi Lei (2020). The Determination of the Amount of Administrative Fine in Illegal Sand Mining in River Course. Sichuan Environment, 2, 166.
[16]	Chen Taiqing (2016). Inquiries Into the Limits of Administrative Fines. Jiang Su Social Science, 1, 103.
[17]	Li Maikun (2020). Adjustment of Classification Mode of Administrative Punishments in China. Legal & Economy, 11, 93.
[18]	Li Maikun (2020). Adjustment of Classification Mode of Administrative Punishments in China. Legal & Economy, 11, note (1) of 93.
[19]	Gu Hongming (2007). The Spirit of the Chinese People. Shaanxi Normal University Press, 36.
[20]	Zhang Hong (2020). Research on the Ways of Setting Administrative Penalties. China Legal Science, 5, 91–92.
[21]	Wu Weixing (2021). Development and Reflection on the Administrative Fine System of China’s Environmental Protection Legislation – Taking the new Law of China on Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste as an Example. Law Review, 3, 164–165.
[22]	Wu Weixing (2021). Development and Reflection on the Administrative Fine System of China’s Environmental Protection Legislation – Taking the new Law of China on Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste as an Example. Law Review, 3, 165.
[23]	Wu Weixing (2021). Development and Reflection on the Administrative Fine System of China’s Environmental Protection Legislation – Taking the new Law of China on Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste as an Example. Law Review, 3, 168.
[24]	Wu Weixing (2021). Development and Reflection on the Administrative Fine System of China’s Environmental Protection Legislation – Taking the new Law of China on Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Solid Waste as an Example. Law Review, 3, 167.
[25]	Xiong Zhanglin (2020). The Purpose of Administrative Penalty. Journal of National Prosecutors College, 5, 38.
[26]	Xiong Zhanglin (2020). The Purpose of Administrative Penalty. Journal of National Prosecutors College, 5, 40.
[27]	Lian Yuqiang (2017). Reflection on the Principle of Against Double Jeopardy from the Perspective of the Connecting Mechanism between Administrative Penalties and Criminal Penalties. Political Science and Law, 3, 126.
[28]	Ying Songnian, Feng Jian (2021). The Dilemma of Administrative Fine System and Its Solutions –Taking Securities Administrative Penalty as an Example. the Seeker, 1, 143.
[29]	Zhang Hong (2020). Research on the Ways of Setting Administrative Penalties. China Legal Science, 5, 94.
[30]	Wang Chu (2011). Administrative Penalties and Penalty of Competing and Cohesion. Administrative Law Review, 3, 83.
[31]	Lian Yuqiang (2017). Reflection on the Principle of Against Double Jeopardy from the Perspective of the Connecting Mechanism between Administrative Penalties and Criminal Penalties. Political Science and Law, 3, 124.
[32]	Qiu Shuaiping (2021). On the Discount Between Fine and Punitive Damages. Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology (Social Science Edition), 1, 153.
[33]	Liu Wenhui (2018). Whether Punitive Damages could Become the Powerful Tool of Public Interest Litigation Problems Gradually Appear in Judicial Practice. The Justice Net (Zheng Yi Wang), http://news.jcrb.com/jxsw/201805/t20180523_1869747.html (accessed January 30, 2022).
[34]	Qiu Shuaiping (2021). On the Discount Between Fine and Punitive Damages. Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology (Social Science Edition), 1, 154.
[35]	Tang Yiliang (2019). Application and Limits of Administrative Penalty offset Criminal Penalty. People’s Court Daily, January 31.
[36]	Lian Yuqiang (2017). Reflection on the Principle of Against Double Jeopardy from the Perspective of the Connecting Mechanism between Administrative Penalties and Criminal Penalties. Political Science and Law, 3, 125.
[37]	Ying Songnian, Feng Jian (2021). The Dilemma of Administrative Fine System and Its Solutions –Taking Securities Administrative Penalty as an Example. the Seeker, 1, 144.
[38]	Wei Lihua (2021). Ten Highlights of the New Administrative Punishment Law. Policy Interpretation, 2, 18.
[39]	Lian Yuqiang (2017). Reflection on the Principle of Against Double Jeopardy from the Perspective of the Connecting Mechanism between Administrative Penalties and Criminal Penalties. Political Science and Law, 3, 134.
[40]	Ying Songnian, Feng Jian (2021). The Dilemma of Administrative Fine System and Its Solutions –Taking Securities Administrative Penalty as an Example. the Seeker, 1, 148.
[41]	Wang Chu (2011). Administrative Penalties and Penalty of Competing and Cohesion. Administrative Law Review, 3, 85.
[42]	Hong Huijuan, Zheng Huai (2020). Connection Between Criminal Non Prosecution and subsequent administrative punishments. Collection of Excellent Papers of the 2020 Guizhou Provincial Procuratorate Theoretical Research Annual Meeting. China Procuratorial Press, 301.
[43]	Wen Jinzi (2017). Consideration of Improper Administrative Penalty in the Related Criminal Penalty. People’s Court Daily, September 21.
[44]	Xie Dengke (2020). The Dilemma and Outlet of the Application of Criminal Fine for Environmental Crime – An Empirical Analysis Based on 209 Decided Cases in Three Northeastern Provinces. Cognition and Practice, 5, 62.
[45]	Xie Dengke (2020). The Dilemma and Outlet of the Application of Criminal Fine for Environmental Crime – An Empirical Analysis Based on 209 Decided Cases in Three Northeastern Provinces. Cognition and Practice, 5, 61.
[46]	Tang Shaojun, Huang Dong (2021). Theoretical Interpretation and Legislation Construction on “the Institution of Restorative Alternative Sentence of Environmental Penalty”. Journal of Central South University (Social Sciences), 1, 53.
[47]	The People’s Court of Shu Lan city, Jin Lin Province (2018). The Administrative Procedure Ruling Reviewing Shulan Forestry Bureau’s Application for Wang Feng–Jie’s Uncontested Administrative An You & Its Non-litigious Execution, ((2018) Ji. 0283 Xing Shen No. 198). China Judgment Online https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/website/wenshu/181107ANFZ0BXSK4/index.html?docId=61f9d8678eaa466c89aba9c900fac047 (accessed January 30, 2022).
[48]	Jian Youhao (2018). The Specific Connection between Administrative Fines and Criminal Fines for Environmental Violations and Crimes. Journal of Guangxi Administrative Cadre Institute of Politics and Law, 3, 81.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Du Wen. (2022). Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine. Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(2), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Du Wen. Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2022, 10(2), 65-82. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Du Wen. Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine. Humanit Soc Sci. 2022;10(2):65-82. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15,
  author = {Du Wen},
  title = {Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine},
  journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences},
  volume = {10},
  number = {2},
  pages = {65-82},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hss.20221002.15},
  abstract = {For the purpose of enhancing sanction and deterrence effects, many scholars support the establishment of punitive damages involving public welfare in china. Because this legislative proposition involves a paradox and many conundrums yet to be resolved, this paper holds a negative attitude towards it. As an alternative, China can use the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to fully protect public welfare. Theoretically, civil public interest litigation (CPIL) should be divided into two categories: the pure civil public interest litigation (PCPIL) and non pure civil public interest litigation (Non-PCPIL). The former consists of CPIL involving indivisible public interests and CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests; The latter consists of diffusive CPIL and composite CPIL. In terms of law application, there is an “overlapping relationship” between CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests and composite CPIL. Only PCPIL involves the question of whether to use the proposed system of punitive damages for harmed public interest, or the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to attain the legal effects of sanction and deterrence. The so-called improved administrative fines is actually an administrative penalty combination composed of large sum fines, continuously calculated daily fines, the system of double fines, the system of both fines and confiscation as well as other administrative penalty measures. As the premise of offsetting administrative fines and criminal fine penalty, the connecting mechanism between administrative laws and criminal laws is actually a two-way lane - administrative punishment before the related criminal proceedings and administrative punishment after the related criminal proceedings. In terms of those two ways, their offsetting of administrative fines against the related criminal fine penalty must follow different principles and specific requirements. In order to fully protect the related public welfare, there should be exceptions to the principle of severe punishments absorbing the light punishments. In China, the legal protection of public welfare is extremely complex. In terms of the identification of the legal liabilities of the law-breakers, legislators and law enforcers should comprehensively consider the relationship and coordination among civil liabilities, administrative liabilities and criminal liabilities.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine
AU  - Du Wen
Y1  - 2022/03/18
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15
T2  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JF  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JO  - Humanities and Social Sciences
SP  - 65
EP  - 82
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8184
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15
AB  - For the purpose of enhancing sanction and deterrence effects, many scholars support the establishment of punitive damages involving public welfare in china. Because this legislative proposition involves a paradox and many conundrums yet to be resolved, this paper holds a negative attitude towards it. As an alternative, China can use the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to fully protect public welfare. Theoretically, civil public interest litigation (CPIL) should be divided into two categories: the pure civil public interest litigation (PCPIL) and non pure civil public interest litigation (Non-PCPIL). The former consists of CPIL involving indivisible public interests and CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests; The latter consists of diffusive CPIL and composite CPIL. In terms of law application, there is an “overlapping relationship” between CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests and composite CPIL. Only PCPIL involves the question of whether to use the proposed system of punitive damages for harmed public interest, or the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to attain the legal effects of sanction and deterrence. The so-called improved administrative fines is actually an administrative penalty combination composed of large sum fines, continuously calculated daily fines, the system of double fines, the system of both fines and confiscation as well as other administrative penalty measures. As the premise of offsetting administrative fines and criminal fine penalty, the connecting mechanism between administrative laws and criminal laws is actually a two-way lane - administrative punishment before the related criminal proceedings and administrative punishment after the related criminal proceedings. In terms of those two ways, their offsetting of administrative fines against the related criminal fine penalty must follow different principles and specific requirements. In order to fully protect the related public welfare, there should be exceptions to the principle of severe punishments absorbing the light punishments. In China, the legal protection of public welfare is extremely complex. In terms of the identification of the legal liabilities of the law-breakers, legislators and law enforcers should comprehensively consider the relationship and coordination among civil liabilities, administrative liabilities and criminal liabilities.
VL  - 10
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Du Wen

Civil, Commercial & Economic Law School, China University of Political Science & Law (CUPL), Beijing, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Du Wen. (2022). Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine. Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(2), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Du Wen. Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2022, 10(2), 65-82. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Du Wen. Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine. Humanit Soc Sci. 2022;10(2):65-82. doi: 10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15,
  author = {Du Wen},
  title = {Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine},
  journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences},
  volume = {10},
  number = {2},
  pages = {65-82},
  doi = {10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hss.20221002.15},
  abstract = {For the purpose of enhancing sanction and deterrence effects, many scholars support the establishment of punitive damages involving public welfare in china. Because this legislative proposition involves a paradox and many conundrums yet to be resolved, this paper holds a negative attitude towards it. As an alternative, China can use the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to fully protect public welfare. Theoretically, civil public interest litigation (CPIL) should be divided into two categories: the pure civil public interest litigation (PCPIL) and non pure civil public interest litigation (Non-PCPIL). The former consists of CPIL involving indivisible public interests and CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests; The latter consists of diffusive CPIL and composite CPIL. In terms of law application, there is an “overlapping relationship” between CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests and composite CPIL. Only PCPIL involves the question of whether to use the proposed system of punitive damages for harmed public interest, or the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to attain the legal effects of sanction and deterrence. The so-called improved administrative fines is actually an administrative penalty combination composed of large sum fines, continuously calculated daily fines, the system of double fines, the system of both fines and confiscation as well as other administrative penalty measures. As the premise of offsetting administrative fines and criminal fine penalty, the connecting mechanism between administrative laws and criminal laws is actually a two-way lane - administrative punishment before the related criminal proceedings and administrative punishment after the related criminal proceedings. In terms of those two ways, their offsetting of administrative fines against the related criminal fine penalty must follow different principles and specific requirements. In order to fully protect the related public welfare, there should be exceptions to the principle of severe punishments absorbing the light punishments. In China, the legal protection of public welfare is extremely complex. In terms of the identification of the legal liabilities of the law-breakers, legislators and law enforcers should comprehensively consider the relationship and coordination among civil liabilities, administrative liabilities and criminal liabilities.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Proper Substitutions of Punitive Damages Involving Public Welfare -- On the Improved Administrative Fine & Its Offsetting Mechanism with Criminal Fine
AU  - Du Wen
Y1  - 2022/03/18
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15
T2  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JF  - Humanities and Social Sciences
JO  - Humanities and Social Sciences
SP  - 65
EP  - 82
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8184
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hss.20221002.15
AB  - For the purpose of enhancing sanction and deterrence effects, many scholars support the establishment of punitive damages involving public welfare in china. Because this legislative proposition involves a paradox and many conundrums yet to be resolved, this paper holds a negative attitude towards it. As an alternative, China can use the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to fully protect public welfare. Theoretically, civil public interest litigation (CPIL) should be divided into two categories: the pure civil public interest litigation (PCPIL) and non pure civil public interest litigation (Non-PCPIL). The former consists of CPIL involving indivisible public interests and CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests; The latter consists of diffusive CPIL and composite CPIL. In terms of law application, there is an “overlapping relationship” between CPIL involving unspecified large number of harmed private interests and composite CPIL. Only PCPIL involves the question of whether to use the proposed system of punitive damages for harmed public interest, or the improved administrative fines and the criminal fine penalty to attain the legal effects of sanction and deterrence. The so-called improved administrative fines is actually an administrative penalty combination composed of large sum fines, continuously calculated daily fines, the system of double fines, the system of both fines and confiscation as well as other administrative penalty measures. As the premise of offsetting administrative fines and criminal fine penalty, the connecting mechanism between administrative laws and criminal laws is actually a two-way lane - administrative punishment before the related criminal proceedings and administrative punishment after the related criminal proceedings. In terms of those two ways, their offsetting of administrative fines against the related criminal fine penalty must follow different principles and specific requirements. In order to fully protect the related public welfare, there should be exceptions to the principle of severe punishments absorbing the light punishments. In China, the legal protection of public welfare is extremely complex. In terms of the identification of the legal liabilities of the law-breakers, legislators and law enforcers should comprehensively consider the relationship and coordination among civil liabilities, administrative liabilities and criminal liabilities.
VL  - 10
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download