【正文】 people in direct charge and people directly involved shall be imposed administrative punishment” form different legal results of different subjects to implement monopoly behaviors, so people begin to suspect the justice of laws, which virtually helps the administrative subjects to implement administrative monopoly, and the deterrent force will be reduced largely. At the same time, though the responsibility of Chinese Antimonopoly Law is too lighter and bees a mere formality, and the law is not obeyed and strictly enforced, so the administrative monopoly remains incessant after repeated prohibition. The jurisdiction of antimonopoly law enforcement institution is limited The definition about the antiadministrative monopoly law enforcement agency in the fifty first article of Chinese Antimonopoly Law is still blurry, and on the one hand, the supervision procedures should be independently established to restrain laws by this law, and on the other hand, the law regulates that the administrative monopoly should be dominated by superior authorities, and the article that “If administrative power by government and organizations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues abuse administrative power, to eliminate or restrict petition will be handled by another regulation, shall be applied to another regulation” has left large space for the rights of relative departments and supervision institutions, which has eliminated the jurisdiction of antiadministrative monopoly law enforcement agent to the administrative monopoly. At the same time, it is not reasonable to handle the behaviors of administrative monopoly by the superior authority of lawbreaker for the legal responsibilities. The superior authority is not a specific authority, because the authorities implementing administrative monopoly are different, and divided policies e from various sources, and the law enforcement has be deposed to various functional authorities, which will easily induce repeat law enforcements or blank law enforcement. Furthermore, the superior authority is not the authority to specially dominate administrative monopoly, or the special judicial authority, and it just is mon law enforcement authority (Wang, 2020). Staffs in superior authority may not have strong antimonopoly Vol. 2, No. 4 Journal of Politics and Law74consciousness, and both the cognition and treatment result all lack in authorities, and they also lack in the ability to teat the cases about administrative monopoly. The range of administrative monopoly regulation is too narrow The article 33 of Chinese Antimonopoly Law limits the object of administrative monopoly in the domain of goods trade. “Administrative power by government and organizations to which laws and regulations grant rights to administer public issues shall not abuse administrative power to carry out following conducts, to hinder the free flow of the modities between regions”. In fact, the character of the transfer of modern economic industry structure is that the proportion of the service industry is enhanced increasingly, and if the object of the antiadministrative monopoly is only limited in the domain of goods trade, the domain which is bigger and occupies more proportion will be abandoned out of the supervision of Chinese Antimonopoly Law. Though the article 34 forbids and excludes that exterior managers participate in local bid invitation and bidding activities, and the article 35 forbids and excludes that exterior managers invest or establish branches including the domain of service trade in local region, but there are many items in the service industry out of these two ranges, and the legal regulation about administrative monopoly behaviors in the domain of service industry is still blank in Chinese Antimonopoly Law. Regulation measures for abstract administrative monopoly are deficient Though Chinese Antimonopoly Law has prohibitive regulations about the behaviors of abstract administrative monopoly, but it regulates nothing about legal responsibility and relief ways. If the illegal behavior of abstract administration can not be redressed in time (including the mode of administrative lawsuit) in practice, it will always induce larger harm (Huang, 2020). Many administrative monopoly behaviors in practice are implemented by the mode of abstract administrative monopoly behavior, and even certain concrete administrative monopoly behavior is always done according to administrative rules, but these rules and byelaws must be examined and approved, recorded or agreed by superior people’s governments or charge authorities when they are constituted, and whey they are dissented, the judgment right is always in original authorities which will be hard to deny the rules