Opinions are currently being sought on draft guidelines. In recent cartel cases, the sanctions imposed by the SAMR appear to have followed the spirit of the draft guidelines. Draft guidelines are expected to be finalized and proclaimed by SAMR in the near future. … Read more NDRC and the EU Competition Directorate are organising a conference on price-related monopoly agreements The statute of limitations for the public execution of cartel activities is two years, which starts from the date of the last existence of the agreements. If the result or effects of the illegal behaviour are persistent, illegal behaviour is considered to be ongoing. Under the provisional provisions, the obligation does not apply to three types of agreements: pricing, production and sales restrictions, and market allocation. In other words, the company cannot agree with SAMR or the local PMRD to suspend the investigation for pricing, production and sales limitation and market distribution. Foreign companies do not have immunity under antitrust law. Is there a formal program that grants private lessons to parties who cooperate after applying for immunity? If so, what are the fundamental elements of the program? If not, to what extent can parties who subsequently cooperated expect an advantage? In addition to the administrative sanctions mentioned above, Section 50 of the ASA is subject to civil obligations under Article 50 of the Agreement agreement where the agreement results in further losses.

The AML does not provide criminal debts arising from cartel activities to individual companies or employees. In Junwei Tian v. Beijing Carrefour Shuangjing Store and Abbott Shanghai, the Beijing Superior People`s Court ruled that the competition authority`s decision alone did not provide sufficient evidence that Abbott and Carrefour would have entered into an anti-competitive agreement. It also found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of an illegal agreement by other means. The AML, which came into force in August 2008, provides that when a company party to an anti-competitive agreement notifies its conduct to the enforcement authorities (NDRC or SAIC) and provides “substantial” evidence, that agency may, at its sole discretion, grant a fine or reduced exemption. For example, in the case of Japanese auto parts (see section on the implementation of agreements), the NDRC found that the agreement involved several operators located outside Chinese territory. However, the products were sold to Chinese automakers, with agreed prices between cartels, which had a negative impact on the Chinese market.