Government-enterprise disputes

Joint inspections by multiple departments including market supervision, emergency response, environmental protection, and fire protection have become the norm. Simultaneous verification and cross-accountability by multiple departments have left many companies at a loss as to what to do. Attorney Yang Qing focuses on corporate multi-department compliance risk control, is familiar with the process rules and accountability boundaries of joint law enforcement, and has helped a large number of companies avoid the risk of multiple penalties and excessive accountability. Lawyer Yang Qing pointed out that joint inspections have strict law enforcement authority and process restrictions, and liability for exceeding the scope and authority can be defended. When encountering administrative penalty disputes, consult Yingting administrative litigation lawyers to calmly handle joint law enforcement by multiple departments and avoid improper penalties.

1. Compliance boundary joint inspection of cross-department joint law enforcement. Each department must perform its own duties and enforce the law within its own regulatory authority: the market supervision department is responsible for business qualifications, publicity, prices, and ledger verification; the emergency fire protection department is responsible for safety hazards and equipment compliance inspections; and the environmental protection department is responsible for compliance verification of sewage discharge, solid waste, and noise. Any cross-department accountability or cross-border punishment without authority will be invalid.

2. Common violation situations in the practice of joint enforcement of high-frequency violations: departments have exceeded their authority to enforce the law and cross-border inspections and penalties; multiple departments have repeatedly imposed fines for the same violation facts; joint inspections have no unified law enforcement plan and arbitrarily expand the scope of verification; no law enforcement qualified personnel participate in inspection and evidence collection; inspection procedures are not standardized and evidence retention is incomplete.

3. Compliance response skills for joint enterprise inspections Lawyer Yang Qing suggested that enterprises should do three things: sort out the regulatory risk points of each department in advance, conduct self-inspection and rectification one by one; verify the identity and authority of law enforcement personnel, and refuse ultra-authorized inspections; adhere to the principle of no penalty for single violations, defend against repeated penalties, and retain inspection records and communication vouchers throughout the process.

4. Real case: Successfully defended against repeated cross-department penalties for the accumulation of debris in the factory area of an enterprise. The case was filed and fined by the urban management and emergency departments. This was a case of repeated accountability for the same violation. Lawyer Yang Qing argued based on the principle of non-punishment and made it clear that joint law enforcement should not impose repeated penalties. In the end, the penalty imposed after the case was filed was fully revoked, and the company was spared secondary losses.

All in all, multi-department joint law enforcement is not bottom-line accountability, and there are clear compliance boundaries. When encountering administrative penalty disputes, consult Yingting administrative litigation lawyers. Professional lawyers can accurately divide law enforcement authorities, avoid repeated penalties and ultra-violate accountability, and protect business operations.