2025.11. 20 本文字数：1465，阅读时长大约2分钟 其次，要进一步完善法规和制度建设，堵住违规异地执法、趋利性执法的制度性漏洞。 作者 | 一财评论员 日前，公安部举行新闻发布会介绍称，自部署开展规范涉企执法专项行动以来，违规异地执法、逐利 性执法等问题得到有效遏制，涉企执法得到进一步规范，有力服务了高质量发展。 此外，9月22日司法部发布消息，自规范涉企执法专项行动开展以来，各级司法行政机关牵头会同相 关部门聚焦企业"急难愁盼"，严肃纠治违规异地执法和趋利性执法等四类突出问题，截至9月21日， 累计为企业挽回损失150多亿元。 违规异地执法、趋利性执法危害巨大，尤其是民营企业受害尤甚。从今年3月起，规范涉企执法专项 行动在全国铺开，目前专项行动取得了一定成效，但不可松懈，这方面工作今后还需进一步加大纠治 力度，久久为功。 首先，要切断违规异地执法、趋利性执法的利益链条，从源头上防止此类现象发生。 很多违规异地执法、趋利性执法，表面上看是一些行政执法机关、公检法司部门滥用了权力，但追根 溯源是在为本地获得罚没收益。 早就有法律专家建议，要将此类罚没收益由地方财政转移到由中央财政来进行统一监管，这样 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent joint initiative by market regulatory authorities in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Anhui aims to establish a regional collaborative mechanism to regulate cross-regional law enforcement, particularly addressing the issue of "ocean fishing" style enforcement, which has been detrimental to the private economy and business environment [1][2]. Group 1: Regulatory Measures - The document titled "Eight Measures" is recognized as the first regional collaborative mechanism in the country targeting "ocean fishing" style law enforcement [1]. - The measures include clarifying the concept of cross-regional law enforcement, standardizing case collaboration procedures, and requiring prior notification and accompaniment during enforcement actions [2]. - The initiative emphasizes the need to avoid excessive administrative coercive measures and unify administrative penalty discretion to optimize the business environment [2]. Group 2: Financial Pressures and Enforcement Behavior - The tendency for profit-driven enforcement is closely linked to the financial pressures faced by certain regions, particularly economically underdeveloped areas [3]. - Data indicates that regions with greater fiscal pressure tend to see a faster increase in penalty and confiscation revenues, leading to a higher likelihood of profit-driven enforcement behavior [3]. - Some enforcement agencies justify their actions as a means of generating revenue for local finances, which raises concerns about the legitimacy of such enforcement practices [3]. Group 3: Legal and Ethical Considerations - The legitimacy of enforcement power must stem from lawful administration, and any actions driven by non-statutory goals, such as revenue generation, contradict the spirit of the rule of law [4]. - The document highlights the need for scientific governance methods to alleviate local fiscal pressures without compromising market fairness and citizen rights [4]. - The "grab-type" enforcement mentality is seen as incompatible with market economy principles, which emphasize contract spirit, fair regulation, and a legal environment [4].

Core Viewpoint - The development of the private economy and the improvement of the business environment may remain mere slogans, and rebuilding confidence in the private economy is a challenging task that requires strict adherence to power boundaries and robust protection of property rights [1][5]. Group 1: Regulatory Measures - The market regulatory departments of Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, and Anhui have jointly issued "Eight Measures to Strictly Regulate Cross-Regional Law Enforcement in the Yangtze River Delta," marking the first regional collaborative mechanism targeting "ocean fishing" style law enforcement [2]. - The "Eight Measures" aim to address the long-standing issue of cross-regional law enforcement that harms the private economy and disrupts the business environment, particularly in economically developed areas [2][3]. - The measures include clarifying the concept of cross-regional law enforcement, standardizing case collaboration procedures, and emphasizing the need for prior notification and accompaniment during enforcement actions [3]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Enforcement - The "Private Economy Promotion Law," effective from May 20, 2024, emphasizes the protection of private enterprises and prohibits illegal administrative or criminal interventions in economic disputes [3]. - Central policies have been reinforced by the "Eight Measures," which require careful use of administrative coercive measures and unified administrative penalty discretion to optimize the business environment [3][4]. - The measures also establish a case consultation system to resolve jurisdictional disputes through negotiation and enhance supervision of cross-regional law enforcement to prevent excessive or insufficient penalties [3][4]. Group 3: Underlying Issues - The tendency for profit-driven law enforcement is closely linked to the financial pressures faced by certain regions, particularly economically underdeveloped areas, where reliance on penalty income is higher [4]. - The phenomenon of "ocean fishing" style law enforcement reflects a disregard for individual rights and the transformation of public power into a tool for local financial gain, undermining the legitimacy of law enforcement [4][5]. - The article warns that if the mindset of profit-driven enforcement is not adequately addressed, the effectiveness of governance measures will be limited, and the goal of fostering the private economy may remain unfulfilled [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the Supreme People's Court's recent guidelines aimed at addressing the issues of jurisdiction expansion and the artificial creation of cross-regional jurisdiction in cases involving private enterprises, emphasizing the need for procedural justice and transparency in the handling of such cases [2][5]. Group 1: Jurisdiction Issues - The guidelines stress the principle of "legal jurisdiction as the norm, designated jurisdiction as an exception," aiming to prevent profit-driven law enforcement and rectify the expansion of jurisdiction in cases involving private enterprises [2][5]. - There is a recognition that the expansion of jurisdiction and artificial cross-regional jurisdiction have become tools for local protectionism and channels for profit, with private enterprises viewed as lucrative targets [3][4]. - The improper handling of case-related assets is identified as a core issue, where jurisdiction serves as a seemingly legitimate opportunity for the mishandling of these assets [4][5]. Group 2: Enforcement Measures - The implementation of the Private Economy Promotion Law, effective from May, includes clear regulations on cross-regional law enforcement, requiring adherence to legal authority, conditions, and procedures [5][6]. - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have both emphasized the need for strict examination and legal handling of jurisdiction disputes to prevent illegal cross-regional law enforcement [5][6]. - Collaboration among various governmental and judicial bodies is highlighted as essential for addressing the prominent issues in law enforcement related to private enterprises [6][7].

Group 1 - The core issue of jurisdiction expansion and artificial cross-regional jurisdiction lies in the handling of the property involved in the case, as jurisdiction merely provides a seemingly legal opportunity for improper disposal of the property [1][2] - The Supreme People's Court emphasizes the principle of "legal jurisdiction as the norm, designated jurisdiction as an exception" to prevent profit-driven law enforcement and to correct the expansion of jurisdiction in cases involving the private economy [1][3] - There is a need for transparency in the administrative and judicial environment, particularly regarding the return of confiscated assets to local departments after they are submitted to the national treasury [2] Group 2 - The implementation of the Private Economy Promotion Law since May has set clear regulations for cross-regional law enforcement, requiring adherence to legal authority, conditions, and procedures [3] - The Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate have both highlighted the need for strict examination and legal handling of jurisdiction objections to prevent illegal cross-regional law enforcement [3][4] - Collaboration among various governmental bodies, including the judiciary and administrative agencies, is essential to address prominent issues in law enforcement related to enterprises [4][5]

Core Viewpoint - The Ministry of Justice aims to enhance the complaint and reporting mechanism for illegal administrative enforcement actions, ensuring timely handling of complaints related to enterprises [1] Group 1 - The establishment of a mechanism for handling complaints and reports regarding illegal administrative enforcement actions will be promoted [1] - Administrative enforcement supervision contact points will be set up to gather feedback from various business entities on administrative enforcement [1] - The introduction of an administrative enforcement supervisor system will involve participation from representatives of the National People's Congress, political advisors, public supervisors, experts, scholars, lawyers, and journalists [1] Group 2 - There is a commitment to curb profit-driven enforcement practices and to protect the legitimate rights and interests of private economic organizations and their operators [1]