| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |