摘要
混淆没收程序中的"违法所得"与作为罚款幅度确定依据的"违法所得",是行政机关陷入违法所得认定泥淖的根源。事实上,前者是指实际因实施损害公共利益的违法行为而直接或间接获得的利益,因而应根据违法行为的类型和没收违法所得的功能的不同,分别采实际收入说或利润说来认定。后者是指潜在所得,指理论上可从损害公共利益和他人利益的违法行为中直接获得的利益或减少的损失,因而应采名义所得法来认定。
The confusion between the ＇illegal gains＇ in the forfeiture proceeding and the ＇illegal gains＇ as the determining basis of the fining range is the source of administrative organs＇ bogging down in the mud of illegal gains determination. In fact, the former refers to the actual benefits directly or indirectly gained because of the conducted illegal acts which are harmful to the public interest. Therefore, actual income theory or profit theory should be adopted respectively according to different types of illegal acts and different functions of the forfeited？ illegal？ gains. The latter refers to the potential proceeds, i.e. in theory it means the benefits gained or losses reduced directly from illegal acts which damage public interest or others＇ interest, thus the nominal income method is adopted.
出处
《行政法学研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2013年第4期53-59,共7页
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW
基金
南京大学985三期项目"社会转型与法治发展"(010522613001)
关键词
违法所得
构成要件
内幕交易
没收
罚款
Illegal Gains
Constitutive Requirement
Insider Trading
Forfeiture
Fining
