| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 會計資訊與法律數位學習碩士在職專班 === 103 === Development behaviors and economic activities in recent years have taken their toll on environment as it is overloaded by severe pollutions such as water pollution, air pollution, illegal disposal of wastes, soil pollution and destruction of ecology. On the other hand, environmental laws are established and enforced for a multitude of functions and tasks. Among all, the punishment system for environmental pollutions is designed to monitor the legal compliance of those who are being monitored, thus achieving the goal of legislation. The punishment often comes in the most popular and easiest form of administrative penalty, which has the most important key position. Since the promulgation of the Administrative Penalty Act, Articles 18 and 20 have provided the legal ground on which confiscation or punishment on illegal benefits is enforced. However in the real world, the enforcement agencies’ lack of enforcement flexibility led to subsequent administrative remedy, as those who were penalized appealed and defended for the costs saves from violating environmental laws or illegal benefits. As a result, this study was intended to analyze the remargining of illegal benefits in terms of type, scope and factors of discretion, the estimation of calculation principles and the criteria of discretion enforced by the Environmental Protection Administration for illegal benefits, and investigate for the first time cases of illegal benefits penalized according to the Administrative Penalty Act. The report from “Environmental Law Enforcement Seed Trainer Program Agreement between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection – A Workshop at US EPA” was scrutinized for pollution cases in the US, the basis on which the penalty was determined for these cases and how the illegal benefits were calculated. A comparison was made to find out the difference in the confiscation of illegal benefits in Taiwan’s administrative penalty system and the result may be helpful as reference.
|
|---|
