In the determination of administrative crimes, the normative application of preceding laws directly impacts the accuracy of criminal conviction. As a typical administrative crime, the crime of illegal fishing of aquatic products exhibits discrepancies in the judicial application of the preceding laws upon which the determination of its “Four Prohibitions” relies. These discrepancies primarily stem from inconsistencies in the provisions of the preceding laws themselves and divergent judicial interpretations thereof. While the formal determination of the “Four Prohibitions” may be adjusted according to local conditions, their substantive determination shall remain consistent. However, there is currently a tendency to break through the substantive determination in the identification of the “Four Prohibitions”, resulting in some behaviors without serious social harm being included in the scope of crimes. To address this, standardization can be pursued in four key aspects. First, the scope of preceding laws should be confined to those regulations explicitly stipulating “fishing prohibitions”, rather than encompassing all normative documents related to fishing bans. Second, it is essential to ensure that the preceding laws align with the legal interests protected by the crime of illegal fishing of aquatic products. Third, courts should scrutinize preceding laws when referencing them, excluding those that are manifestly improper from application. Fourth, on the basis of referencing preceding laws, a re-judgement should be made with social harmfulness as the core.