The legislative consolidation of the institution of administrative prejudice is inconsistent. This creates difficulties in defining its boundaries in the understanding and application of the relevant rules. Itself administrative collateral estoppel deserves a critical eye. It violates the principle of non bis in idem; shifts the basis of criminal responsibility towards the personality of the offender; blurs the boundaries between crime and administrative offence. Its existence is actually allocated among administrative offences special group of torts, which occupies its public danger an intermediate position between administrative great-wonarishinani and crimes. This result unnecessarily complicates the system of public offences.