On The Credit Restoration In The Joint Punishment Of Dishonesty

In recent years,joint punishment for dishonesty has become an important regulatory tool for administrative organs.Part of the joint disciplinary measures against dishonesty is an administrative act with the nature of infringement,which directly affects the rights and obligations of the dishonest subject.Part of the joint punishment measures for dishonesty only have a real impact on the dishonest subject.Credit restoration refers to the disciplinary measures that the dishonest subject stops publicizing the dishonest information record after correcting the dishonest behavior and eliminating the adverse effects,and the administrative organ,in accordance with its authority,annuls the joint disciplinary action of dishonesty with the nature of infringement,and stops the factual impact on the dishonest subject.Credit restoration is not only of positive significance to protect the rights of the dishonest subject,but also of great significance to realize the legalization of the joint punishment procedure for dishonesty.Most of the relevant provisions of credit restoration in China are scattered in regulations and normative documents,which makes it difficult to form a unified legal system for credit restoration,and the legal rank is low and the operability is poor.In terms of the recognition of the applicable objects of credit restoration,China has not formed a complete recognition standard system and lacks the judgment standard of the dishonest behavior of the non credit restoration objects,resulting in the unclear scope of the applicable objects.In the process of improving the scope of application of credit restoration,we should follow the principle of legal reservation and proportion to ensure the rights of the dishonest subject.The credit behavior in credit restoration includes the basic credit behavior and the additional credit behavior stipulated by some laws and regulations.In the process of setting up credit behavior,there are some problems such as too broad responsibilities of administrative organs,mismatch between credit behavior and repair content,etc.we should first determine the target basis of setting up credit behavior,define the connection point between credit behavior and repair content through cost analysis,evaluation of the performance ability of the dishonest subject,classification and level management,andconstantly explore and establish The linkage mechanism of public-private cooperation.There is no uniform regulation on how to abolish the administrative act of infringing interests and stop the factual act that has effect on implementation in the published normative documents.In addition,the existing laws and regulations have made clear provisions for some dishonesty,and the recovery results that the dishonest subject wants cannot be achieved through credit recovery.If we want to ensure the effectiveness of restoration as much as possible,we need to increase the efforts to eliminate the dishonest records and repair records,and adopt the rules to limit the query of dishonest information.For some of the obstacles that conflict with the expectation of restoration,we need to find common bridging points based on the common concept of rule of law and social reality.Guarantee the elimination of punishment effect of dishonest subject and the realization of repair result.