行政法上連續處罰與不法利得之追繳，可同時作為政府管制的政策工具，二者共同爭議之處在於，處分性質、行為數之認定，以及併同裁處是否有裁量濫用之問題。連續處罰本為行政罰，因行政執行法第31條第2項但書規定，產生諸多混淆，應予刪除，並回歸各行政專法加以規範。連續處罰具有不斷累積之特性，立法者藉由時間緊密性累計高額罰鍰，達成威赫違規者儘速改善之管制目的，但應受一行為不二罰原則之拘束。 不法利得之追繳縱使在形式上附隨於罰鍰處分，並不具制裁性質。其追繳目的在於調整不法行為所改變的財產秩序，回復為合法狀態，其處分性質為不具裁罰性之不利處分，實無區分追繳受處罰者與未受處罰者不法利得之必要。行政罰法第18條第2項與第20條不法利得之追繳，立法目的並無不同，應修法將追繳不法利得，明文定性為不具裁罰性的管制性不利處分。 ;Consecutive fines and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains (DIGG) in administrative law can be used as policy tools for government control at the same time. The common dispute between the two is the nature of the administrative sanctions, the judgment of the number of violations, and together with the penalty whether there is a problem of discretionary abuse. Consecutive fines are constructed as administrative penalties, but because the provison of Article 31, Item 2 of the Administrative execution Act, there has been a lot of confusion, so it should be deleted and returned to the specific administrative laws to be regulated. Consecutive fines have the characteristics of continuous accumulation. The legislator accumulates high fines through the tightness of time to intimidate offenders as soon as possible, but it should be bound by the principle of ne bis in idem.
DIGG, although formally connected with an administrative fine, is not an administrative penalty. The purpose of DIGG, is to adjust the property order changed by illegal acts and restore it to a legal state. DIGGs are regilatory actions of a non-punitive nature, and there is no need to distinguish between the DIGGs of the liable actor and the non-liable third person. Article 18, Item 2, and Article 20 of the Administrative Penalty Act have the same legislative purpose for the DIGG, therefore the act should be amended to expressively define DIGG as regilatory actions of a non-punitive nature.
