Antitrust Enforcement on Cartels
(Asian Perspective)
3rd CUTS-CIRC Biennial Conference
on
Competition Reforms : Emerging Challenges in a Globalizing World,
November, 18-19, 2013
New Delhi
MM Sharma
Head, Competition Law and Policy
Scheme of Presentation
 Treatment of Cartels Across Select Jurisdictions (Civil Or Criminal)
 Antitrust in Asia – A Snap-shot
 Cartel Enforcement in Asian Countries – Recent Penalties
 Leniency programme in Asian Countries
2
Treatment of Cartels Across Select Jurisdictions
Only Civil Liability
Civil Liability + Criminal Liability
(for Individuals)
India
United States of America
China
United Kingdom
South Africa
Canada
European Union
Australia
France
New Zealand
Singapore
Japan
Italy
Switzerland
Netherlands
Germany
Sweden
Korea
Turkey
Brazil
Belgium
Russia
3
Antitrust in Asia – A Snapshot
 Similarity with EU and US Structure.
 Emerging awareness against competition law infringements.
 Hong Kong, Malaysia and recently UAE introduce competition law.
 Pakistan reports first case of leniency. Introduces a Reward scheme to
attract whistle blowers to report on violations .
 Singapore makes its first finding on abuse of dominance.
 South Korea increases rewards for whistleblowers .
 Taiwan introduces a leniency program.
 Heavy fines imposed by India, Pakistan, Korea and China on cartels.
4
Cartel Enforcement in Asia – Recent Cases
South Korea
•
•
•
•
•
•
Four dairy companies : Fine of $9.8 million
Twelve life insurance companies : Fine $315 million
Oil refiners : Fine $212.7 million)
Four schoolbook publishers : Fine 900 million won (€640,000)
Nuclear power plant suppliers: 6.35 billion won (€4.4 million)
Cathode ray tubes makers: 54.5 billion won (€36 million)
China
•
•
•
•
•
Two Pharma Companies : Fine RMB 7 million (USD 1.1 million)
Top liquor makers for RPM: Fine 449 million yuan ($ 71.92 million)
Six liquid crystal display (LCD) manufacturers : Fine $ 56 million
Six producers of baby formula : Fine $110 million.
Five jewelers and their trade association: Fine US$ 1.7 million (10.59
million yuan)
Cartel Enforcement in Asia – Recent Cases
India
•
•
•
•
•
Cement Manufacturer : Fine Rs. 6307 Crores (Pending Appeal)
LPG Cylinder Manufacturer: Fine Rs 165.58 Crores (Pending Appeal)
Aluminium Phosphide Tablets: Fine Rs. 10 Crores (COMPAT)
Explosive Manufacturers: Rs. 5.8 Crores (COMPAT)
Shoe Makers: Rs. 6.5 Crores (Pending Appeal)
Pakistan
• Electrical Equipments Cartel : Leniency to Siemens ( Case pending)
• Banks : Fine Rs 770 million
• 14 long-distance call telecoms operators : Fine Rs. 9 billion rupees (€69
million)
• 20 medical centers : Rs 450 million
Singapore
• 11 modelling agencies for cartelization :Fine $ 0.36 Million.
• Motor vehicle traders : S$179,000 (€113,000)
• 16 employment agencies: S$153,000 (€87,000)
Cartel Enforcement in Asia – Recent Cases
Japan
•
•
•
•
Bearing manufacturers : Fine 13.4 billion yen ($142 million)
Starch makers: ¥255 million (€2 million)
Sugar syrup makers: USD $26.8 million
Construction companies : ¥1.7 billion (€17 million)
Taiwan
•
•
•
Nine power companies : NT$6.2 billion (€162 million)
Four major convenience store chains: NT$20 million (€484,000)
Three paper companies :NT$10 million (€235,000)
Leniency Programme in Asian Countries
 In Sync with those in the European Commission and USA. A common trend of
encouraging a “rush to” the competition authority with leniency benefits on
“first cum first served” basis.
 In CHINA,INDIA,JAPAN,PAKISTAN,SOUTH KOREA- A general trend100% reduction to First applicant; Up to 50% to the Second and Up to 30% to
the third applicant. No further reductions for subsequent applicants, except in
Japan ( up to 30% to first 3 applicants only thereafter) and Taiwan ( up to 50%
to first 4 applicants only thereafter).
 KOREA ,PAKISTAN-introduced a Reward Scheme.
 SINGAPORE-introduced “Leniency Plus”- to encourage those members of the
cartel who could not get benefit under the Leniency scheme earlier.
Privileged & Confidential
8
Disclaimer
This presentation is intended to provide general information in
a summary form. It does not constitute legal advice and should
not be relied upon as such. Formal legal advice should be
sought in particular matters
Thank You
E-mail- mmsharma@vaishlaw.com
9