滥用职权行为与“重大损失”结果之间通常存在较为异常和偶然的介入因素，行为并不直接支配重大损失结果的发生，而是仅为介入因素造成结果创造条件、提供机会，行为对结果的支配力弱，且行为人对“重大损失”结果并无故意的意志因素，这决定了滥用职权罪的结果归责具有特殊性。出于限制处罚范围的需要，滥用职权罪的成立以“重大损失”的出现为必要条件，但由于“重大损失”与实行行为之间特殊的因果关联，却又难以将“重大损失”等同于典型的犯罪结果。“重大损失”结果并非是与违法性与有责性无关的客观的处罚条件，而是表征了滥用职权行为所内含的法益侵害危险的非典型的构成要件要素，是能够客观归责于滥用职权行为的危害结果。从刑事政策的角度来说，滥用职权罪的法定刑较低但法益保护的重要性较大，实际处罚较轻但一般预防的必要性较大，有必要对本罪的结果归责作相对宽松的要求。由于“重大损失”的特殊体系地位以及刑事政策考量在本罪中的重要意义，本罪的结果归责不适用典型故意犯中的意志归责模式，而应纳入规范归责的范畴，回溯禁止、信赖原则在本罪中无适用的空间，被害人自我答责原则应限制适用。在事实归因层面，有必要在采取条件说的同时，以“充分原因中的必要要素标准”（NESS规则）为补充，假定的因果关系不影响归责。在结果归责层面，相当因果关系理论的意义在于确立了可预见性规则，但其具有规范性不足的缺点，难以完成滥用职权罪的结果归责重任。本罪应采用客观归责理论，违反职责义务制造或升高了法益侵害危险的滥用职权行为是归责的重心，对行为所具有的法益侵害危险的预见可能性是归责的最外部边界，规范保护目的划定了归责的清晰的范围。在此基础上，有必要在滥用职权罪的结果归责中运用类型化思维，将不同的案件分别归入是否具有重大损失结果、是否违反相关义务、是否具有预见可能性以及是否处在规范保护目的内等四种类型，通过细化各个归责类型下的具体规则，使得滥用职权罪的结果归责模式更加具有有效性和可操作性。

Since there are usually abnormal and accidental interventional-factors between the conduct of abusing authority and “heavy losses”, and the conduct of abusing authority does not directly result in “heavy losses”, but only provides condition for the interventional-factors. Apart from this character, its manipulation over the result is weak, and the defendant subjectively does not want the result to happen. All together determine the special regulating of this criminal action. “heavy losses” is necessary for limiting the scope of punishment in the crime of abusing authority, but it is difficult to equate “heavy losses” to typical criminal consequences, because of its special casual nexus with the conduct. “heavy losses” in the crime of abusing authority is not an objective punishment condition that has nothing to do with the illegality and the schuld, but it is an unrepresentative constitutive element that represents the danger of violation of legal interests, which is inherent in the conduct of abusing authority. Therefore “heavy losses” can be imputed to the conduct of abusing authority. In terms of the criminal policy, the legal punishment of this crime is low but it’s legal interest protection is important, the actual punishment is light but the significance of general prevention is great, it is necessary to lower the requirement over the result imputation of the crime of abusing authority. Due to the special institutional status of “heavy losses” and the significance of criminal policy, the normative imputation is appropriate for the regulation of this crime, rather than the traditional pattern of volitional imputation. The principle of retrospective prohibition and the reliable principle are not available for this crime, and the application of the self-liability principle should be limited. In terms of factual attribution, the condition theory and the theory NESS are required, and the Hypothetical causation will not affect the attribution. In terms of the result imputation, the theory of considerable causality establishes foreseeability rules, but it is not suitable for the result imputation of this crime for its lack of normativity. The objective imputation theory is suitable, while it objectively focuses on violating of the obligations that creates or increases the danger to the legal interests, besides, the consequence-based liability should be limited by the rule of foreseeability and the legal purpose of the norms. The typological?thinking is available for the result imputation?, thus the cases can be classified in four types, concerning “whether exists ‘heavy losses’”, “whether the obligations is violated”, “whether the risk of the conduct is foreseeabl”, “whether the result can be imputed under the legal purpose of the norm”. This concrete and specific rules may contribute to the effective and exercisable result imputation of the crime.