作者：刘艳红
作者介绍：中国政法大学刑事司法学院教授
出版日期：2025年4月9日
内容提要 在行政犯时代，行刑反向衔接机制可以限缩行政犯处罚范围并提升治理质效，但也面临着治理理念不统一、具体程序缺失以及审查监督失衡的问题。行政犯的行刑反向衔接应该在实体机制、程序机制与审查监督机制中贯彻实质法益保护理念。实体机制的构建应落实刑法谦抑性原则，对是否不起诉及适用行政处罚进行实质审查，并对不起诉案件设置与实质法益损失相均衡的行政处罚。程序机制的构建应围绕实质法益认定来协调不同检察部门的职责，设置行刑反向衔接审批程序以防止“双重处罚”，还须完善证据反向移送程序，并以构成要件为核心来塑造基于行为要件、罪量要件与结果要件的反向移送标准。审查监督机制要结合不同语境来设置，着重分析是否存在实质法益的保护疏漏与具体行为情节的误判。在相对不起诉后展开双部门双审查模式的必要性审查，在存疑不起诉与绝对不起诉后推动信息共享、强化行政监督。
关键词 行政犯 行刑反向衔接 实质法益保护 审查监督机制 行政处罚
Abstract: In the era of administrative offenses, the reverse coordination mechanism between administrative enforcement and criminal justice can limit the scope of punishment for administrative offenses and improve the quality and efficiency of governance, but at the same time, it faces the problems of inconsistency in governance concept, lack of specific procedures, and imbalance of review and supervision. The reverse coordination between administrative enforcement and criminal justice for administrative offenses should implement the concept of substantive legal interest protection in the substantive mechanism, procedural mechanism, and review and supervision mechanism. The construction of substantive mechanism should implement the principle of modesty in criminal law, conduct substantive review on whether to avoid prosecution and apply administrative punishment, and set administrative punishments that balance the losses of substantive legal interests and non-prosecution cases. The construction of procedural mechanism should focus on the identification of substantive legal interests to coordinate the responsibilities of different procuratorial departments, establish an approval procedure for reverse coordination between administrative enforcement and criminal justice to prevent ‘double punishment’, improve the evidence reverse transfer procedure, and shape the reverse transfer standard based on behavioral elements, quantity elements, and result elements with constituent elements at the core. The review and supervision mechanism should be set up based on different contexts. In this process, we should analyze whether there are omissions in the protection of substantive legal interests and misjudgment of specific behavior circumstances. The necessity of dual-department and dual-review mode after relative non-prosecution should be examined. Information sharing should be promoted and administrative supervision should be strengthened after suspected non-prosecution and absolute non-prosecution.