The paper analyzes the current state and the progress in the sphere of violations of budgetary law. The author analyzes monitoring data provided by the Territorial Department of the Federal Service for Fiscal and Budgetary Supervision for the Republic of Buryatia, the Department of the Federal Treasury for the Republic of Buryatia. The paper elicits a reduction in the offenses registered by the supervisory authorities. Attention is drawn to the contradictory interpretation of "budgetary responsibility." The place of budgetary responsibility in the system of types of legal responsibility has already been determined, and the nature of the budgetary violations and the budgetary measures of coercion are analyzed. Measures of state coercion can be preventive, suppressive, restorative and punitive. Punitive measures are recognized as legal responsibility. Legal responsibility comes as a result of commission of a wrong-doing by an individual. Other measures are applied irrespective of whether the crime has been committed. The measures of budgetary coercion represent enforcement activities of authorized bodies. The application of measures of budgetary coercion is carried out in a certain procedural form. The Budget Code of the RF contains the notion of "budget violation." The elements of the budget violation are different from what is generally accepted in the legal science. There are differences in the subject, subjective side of a crime and budget violation. When budgetary coercive measures are applied for a budget violation, the category of fault is irrelevant. Understanding budget funds as information concerning the powers of the budget process participants and containing the purpose and name of the person responsible removes, to some extent, the need for the proof of fault regarding many violations of budgetary law. The subjects of "budgetary responsibility" are the collective entities participating in the budget process and possessing the status of a financial authority, chief administrator of budgetary funds, administrator of budgetary funds, recipient of budgetary funds, chief budget revenue administrator, chief administrator of budget deficit funding sources. The participants in the budget process are the institutional units of state administration, parts of a single mechanism. It is senseless to use punitive measures against such entities. It also makes no sense to apply measures of a compensatory nature to such entities, as the parties to the budget process are public authorities, state owned institutions and government agencies operating at the expense of the budget and vested with public property. Any recovery from them means recovery from the budget to another budget or even to the same budget. Coercive budget measures can have the visibility of the compensatory nature only if the view is narrowed to the interest of a financial authority.