Be wary of the impulse to generate revenue with "sky high fines", resulting in a profit of 21.05 yuan and a fine of 110000 yuan for administrative revenue. | Sky high fines | Xigong Court

Recently, a case released by the Xigong Court in Luoyang, Henan Province has sparked heated discussions. A man riding a tricycle selling vegetables in the city earned a revenue of 198.4 yuan and a profit of 21.05 yuan from selling unqualified vegetables, but was fined 110000 yuan. The administrative agency applied to the court for compulsory execution, but the court ultimately ruled against compulsory execution.

From a legal perspective, in this administrative penalty decision, the fine amount is nearly 550 times the revenue and nearly 5500 times the profit, which clearly violates the principle of excessive punishment that administrative law enforcement should adhere to, and the punishment is clearly inappropriate. Furthermore, there are many situations in this case where lenient or mitigated punishment should be given - the vegetables sold by the parties involved were purchased from a large wholesale market in Luoyang, and they have reason to believe that the products they purchased meet food safety standards; The parties involved are first-time offenders, have no subjective intention, have not caused actual harmful consequences, and actively cooperate with the investigation. These situations have clearly not been fully considered by administrative authorities and have not been reflected in administrative penalty decisions.

From a rational perspective, the parties involved are older and rely on a three wheeled vegetable stall to make a living. For some minor illegal behaviors that occur in commercial operations of this group, administrative authorities should adhere to the principle of education as the main focus and punishment as a supplement. They should also patiently and meticulously do a good job in promoting and explaining legal policies, helping them correct mistakes and operate in compliance with the law. On the contrary, imposing "sky high fines" on such groups is difficult for the public to accept in a reasonable sense, and it can also cause harm to the public order and good customs of society.

It is intriguing that this punishment decision, which goes against the principles of administrative law enforcement, public order, good customs, and common sense, has been upheld to the end by relevant administrative agencies - after making the administrative penalty decision, the administrative agency applies to the court for compulsory enforcement. During the review process, the court has repeatedly organized mediation with relevant institutions, but all have failed. After the court made a ruling prohibiting compulsory execution, the administrative authority continued to apply for reconsideration and insisted on completing the second instance judicial procedure.

It is worth noting that this "sky high penalty" case is not an isolated case. In recent times, similar cases have been frequently reported. In 2019, an old farmer in Fujian sold 70 kilograms of unqualified celery and made a profit of 14 yuan. Afterwards, he was fined twice for this, totaling 100000 yuan. In August last year, the State Council inspection team conducted an investigation and found that a self-employed individual in Yulin, Shaanxi sold 5 kilograms of unqualified celery with a revenue of 20 yuan, and was ultimately fined 66000 yuan. Moreover, from 2021 to August 2022, there were over 50 food related administrative penalties imposed by the local market regulatory authorities on small and micro market entities, and 21 fines exceeding 50000 yuan. The value of these cases was only a few tens or hundreds of yuan.

In some places, there are frequent occurrences of "sky high fines", which is difficult to fully explain with legal misunderstandings and inadequate humanization of law enforcement. What is even more alarming is that behind these "sky high fines", there is a faint impulse of the administrative department to "generate revenue". Some administrative departments regard fines as a means of generating income, abuse their administrative discretion, and often impose "top penalties" on market operators, unilaterally pursuing confiscated income; Some administrative agencies indirectly establish fine task indicators, decompose them layer by layer, apply pressure layer by layer, and assess the completion status layer by layer, making fines an important task for administrative departments; In some places, the fine income of the administrative department is implicitly linked to the department's office expenses and welfare benefits, and is implicitly linked through a positive and negative reward and punishment mechanism to mobilize the "fine enthusiasm" of the administrative organs. These erroneous practices seriously deviate from the fundamental purpose of administrative law enforcement, damage the image of government departments, worsen the local business environment, and harm the vital interests of the people. They should be resolutely opposed, corrected, and stopped.

It has been proven that supervision from higher-level administrative departments, judicial departments, news media, and public opinion can effectively curb the impulse of administrative agencies to generate revenue and prevent the occurrence of unreasonable "sky high fines". Therefore, it is necessary to continuously improve the corresponding mechanisms and place the administrative actions of administrative organs under strict supervision. At the same time, increasing efforts and strictly implementing the "Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Further Standardizing the Formulation and Management of Administrative Discretionary Power Benchmarks" is also conducive to further clarifying the boundaries of administrative discretionary power, ensuring unified administrative law enforcement standards, fair procedures, fairness and reasonableness, high efficiency and convenience, and preventing and eliminating obviously excessive "sky high fines" from the source.