作者：张泽涛
作者介绍：广州大学法学院教授
出版日期：2021年10月9日
内容提要 自1979年《刑事诉讼法》颁布以来的四部刑事诉讼法典，程序设计与证据 采信等均是以自然犯作为规范对象。行政犯与自然犯在刑事诉讼程序中应该体现一定的差 异：自然犯的疑难之处在于取证和查获犯罪嫌疑人，行政犯的疑难之处在于专业性和技术性 的行政执法证据的认定、准确地援引数量庞杂的前置性行政法规以及如何判定“不知法免 责”，而这些恰恰是公安司法人员所不擅长的，行政犯的追诉启动往往依赖行政违法前置的 专业性认定。近年来一些社会民众普遍关注的案件基本上与行政违法被启动刑事追诉有关。 “刑事在先”容易导致行政执法主体的专业性调查取证半途而废、援引行政法规不当而导致 错误定罪等诸多弊端。随着行政犯时代的全面到来，应该构建行政不法前置的行政犯追诉 模式：行政犯的追诉启动原则上应该“先行后刑”、强化行政犯违反前置性法规的论证、规范 行政执法证据尤其是专业性事实判断在刑事诉讼中的使用、实行行政执法机关与公安机关 之间权力与程序的无缝衔接。
关键词 行政犯 自然犯 专业性认定 刑事在先
Abstract: Since the promulgation of the Criminal Procedure Law of 1979, the four criminal procedure codes have taken natural crime as the normative object in procedure design and evidence admissibility. There are certain differences between administrative offenders and natural offenders in criminal proceedings. The difficulty of natural offenders is to collect evidence and find suspects. The difficulty of administrative offenders lies in the identification of professional and technical administrative enforcement evidence and the accurate introduction of numerous and complicated administrative regulations and how to determine‘ignorance of the law’. These are exactly what the public security and judicial personnel are not good at. The prosecution of administrative criminals often depends on the professional identification of administrative violations. Some cases of general concern to the public are basically related to the initiation of criminal prosecution for administrative violations in recent years. It is easy to lead to many disadvantages by‘criminal first’, such as the professional investigation and evidence collection of administrative law enforcement subjects giving up halfway, improper invocation of administrative regulations leading to wrongful conviction and so on. We should build a prosecution model of administrative crime ahead of administrative lawlessness with the era of administrative crime: the prosecution of administrative crime should be started‘first administrative punishment and then criminal punishment’in principle, strengthen the demonstration of administrative offenders’ violations of pre-determined regulations, and standardize the evidence of administrative law enforcement, particularly the use of professional factual judgments in criminal proceedings, and implement the seamless connection of power and procedures between administrative law enforcement agencies and public security agencies.