Financial Securities Criminal Identification And Administrative Identified Relations Research

Starting from the aspect of financial and securities crimes, and through the analysis of legal entity and enforcement procedure, this paper tries to seek out dislocation reasons for administrative determination and criminal identification. It is expected to find out the linkage between administrative determination and criminal identification, to improve their relations, thus establishing the independence and authority for criminal jurisdiction.The body part is mainly divided into four parts:The first part defines the concept of financial and securities crimes. After summarizing the opinions of different scholars in criminal law theories, the author thinks that this kind of crime cannot only be limited to the 37 accusations included in Section Four and Section Five of Chapter Three in the"Criminal Law", but also the situations such as issuing stocks in a fraud way, securities crime, infringement of releasing rules, the crime of not disclosing important information, as well as Rule 225 of"illegal business on securities and futures"in"Criminal Law". Through discussing about the administrative and criminal law systems about financial and securities crimes, the paper maintains that the administrative crimes and relative administrative rules are just isolated by this legislation model of single track theory. It separates the link between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice, leading to the disharmony between administrative determination and criminal identification for the financial and securities crimes.The second part mainly conducts positioning analysis on current relations between administrative determination and criminal identification for the financial and securities crimes. By discussing about the linking mechanism for administrative determination and criminal identification for the financial and securities crimes, this paper straightens out the relations between them, and points out the confusion of these two concepts by administrative organs and criminal judicial organs, as well as the conflicts between these two identifications, which lead to the disordered relations of administrative determination and criminal identification. Meanwhile, it enumerates three examples of the disordered relations.The third part mainly analyzes the reasons for the disordered relation of administrative determination and criminal identification in terms of legislation, enforcement practices and enforcement mechanisms. For lagging behind and uncertainty of legislation, it leads to the total separation of administrative determination and criminal identification in judicial practices, thus stopping efficient and successful transition and linkage. In law enforcement practices, for lacking of legal awareness and evidence awareness, administrative law enforcement personnel cannot correctly master the administrative violation of law and administrative crimes. Or they will not transfer the cases that have been suspected to administrative crimes to judicial organs, but only replacing criminal penalties with fines and indulging the criminals. With regard to law enforcement mechanism, for lacking of distinct work division and coordination between administrative determination and criminal justice, legislation has not clearly defined the scope, influences and mutual linkage of them. All of these have caused the inefficient treatment of large amount of criminal cases.The fourth part proposes the solution to improve the current situation of criminal identification and administrative determination in terms of legislation, enforcement practices and law enforcement mechanism according to the analysis of the context. It focuses on determining the scope of administrative determination, progressive standard of proof and standard cooperative mechanism. It is expected, from entity to procedures, to establish a favorable relationship mechanism for criminal identification and administrative determination in financial and securities crimes, thus enhancing the independence and authority of jurisdiction.