单位违法是行政处罚领域的一个重要问题，理清单位违法的相关问题，关乎我国行政处罚的合法性、公平性以及高效性。本文的研究对象为证券领域的单位违法及相关问题。本文结合中国证监会的行政处罚案例，以证券行政处罚中的“双罚”制为本文探讨的重点，尝试分析证券领域单位违法行政处罚的问题，为完善证券领域的单位违法行政处罚制度提出建议，也为进一步加强和完善我国行政处罚制度提供参考借鉴。

    第一章“单位违法的概念”。单位违法脱胎于单位犯罪，二者具有一定联系，但是也有着本质的区别。应当厘清行政法学的单位违法概念与刑法学的单位犯罪概念。单位违法是指单位（法人或其他组织）中的法人代表或是经授权的单位成员以单位的名义从事的违反行政法义务的行为，应当承当相应的法律责任的违法行为。学界对单位违法的研究大都停留在主体研究上，其争议焦点在于单位违法的主体究竟是单位成员还是单位，或者两者都可能成为单位违法的主体。我国单位违法主体理论通过不断发展，现今在学界已基本形成“两个主体”的认识，在限定单位违法范围上发展出“立法排除模式”的理论。

第二章“单位违法行政处罚形式现状”。考察我国各个涉及单位违法行政处罚的法律条文，笔者发现，单位违法的行政处罚形式基本以“单罚”为主，有部分法律条款涉及“双罚”。我国近年的立法呈现出从“单罚”向“双罚”转变的趋势，除了《证券法》外，《民法通则》、《公司法》、《食品安全法》、《安全生产法》、《商标法》、《专利法》、《治安管理处罚法》、《消费者权益保护法》等法律皆有涉及单位违法的条款。我国证券领域已基本形成单位违法的“双罚”制，然而，形成“双罚”制的背后还有诸多尚未解决的问题。单位的主体地位应该如何确定？适用“双罚”制的标准又当如何？违法所得是否应当作为单位违法“双罚”制的构成要件等等问题函待解决。

    第三章“单位违法证券行政处罚‘双罚制’之确立”。“双罚”制的确立依据一方面来自于理论上对单位和单位成员责任的统一，另一方面来自于证券领域法律法规的规范。单位意志与单位成员意志的统一体现为：单位和单位成员责任的统一，单位意志和单位成员的意志存在相互转化的特性。为了保障并且监督证券监管机构在行政处罚中能够更好地维护公共利益，保证证券市场地有效运行，需以“法定原则”和“双罚原则”作为证券领域的单位违法的处罚原则。

第四章“证券领域单位违法的认定标准”。单位违法的认定包括：主体认定、主观认定和客观认定三个标准。主体的认定直接影响到中国证监会在行政处罚中采取“单罚”或是“双罚”。从主观认定看，中国证监会难以考察行为人主观上的过失或是故意，所以中国证监会经常采用行为推定的监管理念。即是违法行为表征是单位违法，对违法主体主观方面不加以具体的认定，一律推定为单位违法行为，并实施“双罚”。笔者认为,如要适用“双罚”不能够简单推定，而是证明违法行为的证据所指向的事实能够证明单位和单位成员在主观上具有一致性，不该将单位成员因个人意志所做出的违法行为归结为单位违法行为。从客观方面来看，我国习惯性地将危害结果排除在行政处罚构成要件之外，随着行政法学研究的发展，危害结果的重要性不断体现。在证券领域，以违法所得为代表的危害结果应成为中国证监会量罚的依据。

Unit violations are an important issue in the area of administrative punishment, and the related issues of addressing violations are related to the legality, fairness, and efficiency of administrative punishment in China. The research object of this article is unit violations and related issues in the field of securities. This article combines the administrative penalty cases of the China Securities Regulatory Commission with the " double-punish " system in securities administrative penalty as the focus of this article. It attempts to analyze the problem of illegal administrative penalties for units in the securities field, and proposes suggestions for improving the system of illegal administrative penalties for units in the securities field. It also provides a reference for further strengthening and perfecting China's administrative punishment system.
    Chapter One is "Concept of Unit Illegal Law". Unit violations are born out of unit crimes. The two have a certain connection, but there are also essential differences. The concept of unit violations in administrative law and the concept of unit crimes in criminal law should be clarified. Unit violations refer to violations of administrative law obligations undertaken by legal representatives or authorized unit members in the unit (legal person or other organization) in the name of the unit, and shall bear corresponding legal responsibility for violations. The academic research on unit violations mostly stays on the subject research. The controversial focus is whether the unit violations are unit members or units, or both may become the unit violations subjects. Through the continuous development of the theory of unit illegal subjects in China, the understanding of "two subjects" has been basically formed in the academic world, and the theory of "legislation exclusion model" has been developed in limiting the scope of unit illegal.
Chapter Two is "the status quo of the unit's illegal administrative punishment form". Examining various legal provisions concerning administrative penalties for violations by units in China, the author found that the forms of administrative penalties for violations by units are basically "single penalties", and some legal provisions involve " double-punish ". China's legislation in recent years has shown a trend of changing from "single penalty" to " double-punish". In addition to the “Securities Law ”, “General Principles of The Civil Law ”, “Company LAW ”, “Food Safety Law”, “Work Safety Law ”, “Trademark Law” , “Patent Law” ,“ Public Security Administration Punishments Law”, and “Law on Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests ” all have provisions that involve violations of the unit. China's securities sector has basically formed a " double-punish" system for unit violations. However, there are still many unresolved problems behind the formation of " double-punish " system. How should the unit's dominant position be determined? What are the standards for applying the " double-punish " system? Whether the illegal gains should be regarded as the constituent elements of the unit's illegal " double-punish" system and other issues to be resolved. 
    Chapter Three is "Establishment of ‘double-punish’ System for Administrative Penalties for Illegal Securities by Units". The basis for the establishment of the " double-punish " system stems from the theoretical unification of the responsibilities of units and unit members on the one hand, and from the regulation of laws and regulations in the securities field on the other. The unity of unit will and unit member's will manifest as: unity of unit and unit member's responsibility, unit will and unit member's will have mutual transformation characteristics. In order to protect and supervise the securities regulatory agencies to better protect the public interest in administrative punishment and ensure the effective operation of the securities market, the "statutory principle" and " double-punish principle" need to be used as the principle of punishment for illegal violations by securities companies.
Chapter Four is "Identification Standards for Illegal Units in the Securities Field". The determination of the unit's violation of law includes: subject identification, subjective identification and objective identification. The determination of the subject directly affects the "single penalty" or " double-punish " adopted by the China Securities Regulatory Commission in administrative punishment. From the perspective of subjective identification, it is difficult for the China Securities Regulatory Commission to investigate the perpetrator's subjective faults or intentions, so the China Securities Regulatory Commission often adopts the presumption of behavior supervision concept. That is, the illegal behavior is a unit violation. Without subjective identification of the subject of the violation, it is presumed to be a unit violation and a " double-punish" is imposed. the author thinks. If " double-punish" is to be applied, it cannot be simply presumed, but the facts pointed out by the evidence that proves the illegal behavior can prove that the unit and the unit member are subjectively consistent, and the unit member should not be violated by his own will The behavior comes down to unit violations. From an objective point of view, our country habitually excludes harmful results from the elements of administrative punishment. With the development of administrative law research, the importance of harmful results continues to be reflected. In the field of securities, the harmful results represented by illegal gains should become the basis for the China Securities Regulatory Commission to measure and punish.