论审计行政程序中的证据运用
发布时间：2018-08-27 06:45
【摘要】： 在我国,关于行政程序中证据的立法尚不是太多,目前主要是依据行政诉讼证据的有关规定来规范行政程序中证据运用问题。由于我国行政程序的领域非常众多,且各有其特殊性,行政诉讼中有关证据的规定并不是对所有行政程序都非常适合。本文借鉴三大诉讼法中证据的规定,结合审计工作的特点和实践,讨论了审计行政程序中在证据种类、取证方式和证明标准等方面特殊性问题,具体包括书面证据、口头证据、实物证据和环境证据等证据种类的特殊性问题及其与诉讼证据的对接;审计风险、分析性复核、监盘、审计抽样等审计行政取证中的特殊性问题;以及审计证明标准的多元化、审计重要性原则与审计证明标准的关系问题等。通过对审计行政程序中证据运用的这些特殊问题的研究,试图探讨我国行政证据立法需要关注和完善的一些方面。
[Abstract]:In our country, the legislation on the evidence in the administrative procedure is not too much. At present, it is mainly based on the relevant provisions of the evidence in the administrative procedure to regulate the use of evidence in the administrative procedure. Because there are many fields of administrative procedure in our country, and each has its own particularity, the provisions of evidence in administrative litigation are not very suitable for all administrative procedures. Based on the rules of evidence in three procedural laws and the characteristics and practice of audit, this paper discusses the particularity of evidence types, methods and standards of proof in audit administrative procedure, including written evidence and oral evidence. The particularity of the types of evidence such as physical evidence and environmental evidence and their docking with litigation evidence; the particularity of audit administrative evidence, such as audit risk, analytical review, inspection panel, audit sampling, etc.; and the diversification of audit certification standards, The relationship between audit importance principle and audit certification standard, etc. Through the study of these special problems in the application of evidence in the audit administrative procedure, this paper tries to discuss some aspects that need to be paid attention to and perfected in the legislation of administrative evidence in our country.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D922.27
本文编号：2206449
[Abstract]:In our country, the legislation on the evidence in the administrative procedure is not too much. At present, it is mainly based on the relevant provisions of the evidence in the administrative procedure to regulate the use of evidence in the administrative procedure. Because there are many fields of administrative procedure in our country, and each has its own particularity, the provisions of evidence in administrative litigation are not very suitable for all administrative procedures. Based on the rules of evidence in three procedural laws and the characteristics and practice of audit, this paper discusses the particularity of evidence types, methods and standards of proof in audit administrative procedure, including written evidence and oral evidence. The particularity of the types of evidence such as physical evidence and environmental evidence and their docking with litigation evidence; the particularity of audit administrative evidence, such as audit risk, analytical review, inspection panel, audit sampling, etc.; and the diversification of audit certification standards, The relationship between audit importance principle and audit certification standard, etc. Through the study of these special problems in the application of evidence in the audit administrative procedure, this paper tries to discuss some aspects that need to be paid attention to and perfected in the legislation of administrative evidence in our country.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D922.27
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前5条
1 徐继敏;证据制度在行政程序法中的地位探析[J];河北法学;2004年01期
2 刘峰;关于审计责任认定与行政处罚问题的思考[J];中国注册会计师;2004年07期
3 刘丽;行政处罚证据的审查及认定[J];行政与法(吉林省行政学院学报);2004年04期
4 曹福来;;行政处罚证据规则探究[J];扬州大学税务学院学报;2006年02期
5 徐继敏;试论行政处罚证据制度[J];中国法学;2003年02期
，本文编号：2206449
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/jingjilunwen/sjlw/2206449.html
