本文選題：審計(jì)處理處罰　切入點(diǎn)：單罰制　出處：《南京審計(jì)學(xué)院》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：政府審計(jì)是國(guó)家治理監(jiān)督體系中的重要組成部分，其目標(biāo)是通過權(quán)力監(jiān)督權(quán)利，嚴(yán)肅查處貪污浪費(fèi)、經(jīng)濟(jì)犯罪、損失資源、鋪張奢侈等機(jī)會(huì)主義行為，最終達(dá)到保護(hù)人民群眾的利益。無論關(guān)于審計(jì)本質(zhì)的“經(jīng)濟(jì)監(jiān)督論”、“經(jīng)濟(jì)控制論”，還是“權(quán)利制約論”“民主法治論”，監(jiān)督和查處都是最重要的手段，監(jiān)督需要審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)具有獨(dú)立性，查處需要審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)具有威懾性。獨(dú)立性是審計(jì)的靈魂，獨(dú)立的目的就是為了保證審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)的權(quán)威。我國(guó)審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)隸屬于行政部門，擁有一定的審計(jì)處理處罰權(quán)。審計(jì)處理處罰權(quán)是審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)發(fā)揮其威懾性的途徑之一。審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)在法定的職責(zé)權(quán)利范圍內(nèi)，對(duì)違規(guī)違法行為做出處理或者處罰，促進(jìn)社會(huì)公平公正，督促被審計(jì)單位整改，對(duì)被審計(jì)單位的違規(guī)行為具有威懾和抑制作用。審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)違法行為不具有處理處罰權(quán)利但擁有處理處罰建議的可以移送紀(jì)檢監(jiān)察部門，及時(shí)制止違法行為，同時(shí)保障了刑偵或者檢查機(jī)關(guān)及時(shí)取證，對(duì)違法犯罪行為進(jìn)行有效打擊。 政府審計(jì)處理處罰有兩種模式，一是單罰制，也就是只對(duì)違規(guī)單位或直接責(zé)任人進(jìn)行處理處罰；二是雙罰制，也就是既對(duì)違規(guī)單位進(jìn)行處罰，，同時(shí)還對(duì)直接責(zé)任人進(jìn)行處罰。本文在分析國(guó)家審計(jì)本質(zhì)的基礎(chǔ)上，借鑒單、雙罰制理論，結(jié)合我國(guó)目前的實(shí)際情況，分析雙罰制在我國(guó)的適應(yīng)性：即我國(guó)審計(jì)處理處罰中的雙罰制措施應(yīng)該能起到抑制被審計(jì)單位違規(guī)行為的作用，根據(jù)全國(guó)地方審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)的數(shù)據(jù)分析發(fā)現(xiàn)，單罰中的上交財(cái)政和歸還原渠道資金對(duì)抑制被審計(jì)單位違規(guī)行為有抑制作用，而減少財(cái)政撥款、應(yīng)調(diào)帳處理、移送處理都不具有顯著作用，各種雙罰措施都不具有顯著作用。出現(xiàn)上述悖論的主要原因是單罰措施特別是對(duì)人的移送處理力度太小，從而對(duì)抑制被審計(jì)單位的違規(guī)行為沒有顯著作用。
[Abstract]:Government auditing is an important part of the state governance and supervision system. Its goal is to strictly investigate and deal with opportunistic acts such as corruption and waste, economic crimes, loss of resources, extravagance and other opportunistic acts through power supervision, right supervision, serious investigation and punishment of corruption and waste, economic crimes, and the loss of resources.The ultimate goal is to protect the interests of the people.No matter the "economic supervision theory", "economic cybernetics" or "right restriction theory" or "democratic rule of law" about the essence of audit, supervision and investigation and punishment are all the most important means.Investigation and punishment need audit institutions to be deterrent.Independence is the soul of audit, and the purpose of independence is to ensure the authority of audit institutions.The audit institution of our country is subordinate to the administrative department and has the right to deal with the punishment of audit.The right of punishment is one of the ways for audit institutions to play their deterrent role.The audit institution, within the scope of its legal duties and responsibilities, deals with or punishes violations of the law, promotes social fairness and justice, urges the audited units to rectify and reform, and acts as a deterrent and a deterrent to the irregularities of the audited units.Audit institutions that do not have the right to deal with illegal acts but have the right to deal with punishment proposals may transfer them to discipline inspection and supervision departments to stop the illegal acts in a timely manner, and at the same time ensure that criminal investigation or inspection organs obtain evidence in a timely manner,Effectively crack down on illegal and criminal acts.There are two modes of government audit punishment, one is single penalty system, that is, only dealing with the unit that violates the law or the person directly responsible; the other is the system of double punishment, that is, the punishment is not only for the unit that violates the law, but also for the person directly responsible.On the basis of analyzing the essence of national audit, this paper draws lessons from the theory of single and double penalty, and combines with the actual situation of our country at present.This paper analyzes the adaptability of the double penalty system in our country: that is, the double penalty system in the audit treatment of our country should play a role in restraining the illegal behavior of the audited units. According to the analysis of the data of the local audit institutions throughout the country, it is found that,The single penalty of handing in the finance and returning the funds of the original channel can restrain the illegal behavior of the audited units, but the reduction of the financial allocation, the transfer of accounts and the transfer of funds have no significant effect, and all kinds of double penalty measures have no significant effect.The main reason for the above paradox is that the single penalty measures, especially the transfer of people, are too small, which has no significant effect on restraining the illegal behavior of the audited units.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京審計(jì)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：F239.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡捷;論單位犯罪雙罰制[J];安慶師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年02期

2 劉錚;;中國(guó)特色的國(guó)家審計(jì)項(xiàng)目組織結(jié)構(gòu)研究[J];當(dāng)代財(cái)經(jīng);2013年08期

3 桂忠才;也談“審計(jì)處理難”[J];廣西審計(jì);2003年06期

4 丁華宇;;論公司犯罪雙罰制原則及其立法完善[J];哈爾濱學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年07期

5 高雷;;中國(guó)國(guó)家審計(jì)的三方博弈理論研究[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);2011年02期

6 孫富軍;審計(jì)處理處罰應(yīng)“四要”[J];中國(guó)審計(jì);2001年10期

7 鄭石橋;;審計(jì)頻度、審計(jì)處罰和審計(jì)效果[J];會(huì)計(jì)之友;2012年04期

8 宋皓杰;;我國(guó)政府審計(jì)決定實(shí)施機(jī)制研究[J];會(huì)計(jì)之友;2014年17期

9 王家新;宋皓杰;鄭石橋;;審計(jì)處理處罰模式及其效果:基于地方審計(jì)機(jī)關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)的實(shí)證檢驗(yàn)[J];江海學(xué)刊;2014年04期

10 林泰;;人民民主制度:堅(jiān)持什么、反對(duì)什么、改進(jìn)什么[J];紅旗文稿;2014年01期

本文編號(hào)：1726717