Cartels And Competition Law With Criminal Overlaps
CARTELS AND COMPETITION LAW WITH CRIMINAL OVERLAPS
✅ What is a Cartel?
A cartel is a formal or informal agreement between competing firms to fix prices, limit production, allocate markets or customers, or rig bids, rather than allowing market forces to determine outcomes. These practices undermine competition, inflate prices, and harm consumers.
✅ Competition Law
Competition law (or antitrust law in the US) prohibits anti-competitive agreements. Most jurisdictions, including the EU, US, UK, and India, criminalize hardcore cartel conduct due to its covert, harmful, and deliberate nature.
✅ Criminal Overlaps
In many legal systems, certain cartel behaviours are not only subject to civil or administrative penalties (like fines or damages), but also criminal prosecution, especially when:
The conduct is intentional and secretive
There is evidence of conspiracy
Individuals (e.g., executives) are involved in deceptive collusion
Penalties can include imprisonment, criminal fines, disqualification of directors, and reputational damage.
⚖️ DETAILED CASE LAWS
1. United States v. AU Optronics Corp. (2012)
Jurisdiction: United States
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Law Invoked: Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
📌 Facts:
AU Optronics, a Taiwanese company, and several of its executives were prosecuted for participating in a global price-fixing cartel in the LCD panel industry. They colluded with competitors to fix prices of LCD panels sold to major US companies like Dell and HP.
⚖️ Issues:
Whether foreign companies and executives can be held criminally liable in the US for price-fixing.
Whether the Sherman Act applies extraterritorially.
💼 Judgment:
The jury found AU Optronics and two executives guilty of price-fixing.
The company was fined $500 million — one of the largest antitrust fines at the time.
The executives were sentenced to prison (36 months).
🔍 Significance:
This case demonstrated the US DOJ’s willingness to prosecute foreign entities and individuals criminally for cartel conduct affecting US commerce. It reinforced individual criminal liability in cartel enforcement.
2. R v. George and Others (British Airways Cartel Case, 2010)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Court: Southwark Crown Court
Law Invoked: Enterprise Act 2002, Section 188 (Criminal Cartel Offence)
📌 Facts:
British Airways (BA) and Virgin Atlantic were involved in fixing fuel surcharges on long-haul flights. Virgin reported the cartel to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and was granted immunity. BA’s executives were prosecuted.
⚖️ Issues:
Whether executives had engaged in dishonestly fixing charges.
Whether criminal liability under the UK cartel offence required dishonesty.
💼 Judgment:
Charges against four BA executives were dropped mid-trial due to disclosure failures by the prosecution.
However, British Airways itself was fined £121.5 million in the civil proceedings.
🔍 Significance:
Highlighted challenges in proving criminal dishonesty in cartel cases.
Sparked calls to reform UK law, leading to the removal of dishonesty requirement in later amendments to the Enterprise Act.
3. European Commission – Trucks Cartel (MAN, Daimler, Volvo/Renault, Iveco, DAF – 2016)
Jurisdiction: European Union
Authority: European Commission (EC)
Law Invoked: Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
📌 Facts:
Major truck manufacturers colluded for 14 years to fix prices and coordinate the timing of introducing emission technologies. The collusion affected the entire EEA (European Economic Area).
💼 Outcome:
EC imposed a record fine of €2.93 billion.
MAN received full immunity for whistleblowing.
Other firms received reduced fines for cooperation.
🔍 Significance:
Though not criminal in nature under EU law (which lacks criminal penalties at the EU level), this case had criminal implications in member states.
Demonstrated the leniency policy effectively breaking the cartel.
Set precedent for follow-on private damages claims.
4. Indian Cement Cartel Case (2012) – Builders Association of India v. Cement Manufacturers
Jurisdiction: India
Authority: Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Law Invoked: Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002
📌 Facts:
11 major cement companies were found to have colluded to fix prices and limit supply across India. They used their trade association (CMA) to share information and coordinate pricing.
💼 Judgment:
CCI imposed penalties of Rs. 6,300 crore (approx. USD $1 billion at the time).
Found to be in violation of Section 3(3)(a)-(d) (cartel provisions).
🔍 Criminal Overlap:
While India does not currently provide for criminal penalties under the Competition Act, other laws like the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could theoretically be invoked for criminal conspiracy (Section 120B).
The case initiated discussions about criminalizing hardcore cartel conduct in India.
5. Canada – R. v. Durward et al. (2007)
Jurisdiction: Canada
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Law Invoked: Competition Act, Section 45 (criminal provision)
📌 Facts:
Three individuals, including Durward, were involved in a bid-rigging conspiracy in the electrical contracting business. They manipulated tenders for municipal projects in Ontario.
💼 Judgment:
Found guilty under the criminal conspiracy provisions of the Competition Act.
Sentences included fines and imprisonment.
🔍 Significance:
Reinforced that bid-rigging is treated as a criminal offence in Canada.
The Competition Bureau took a strong stance on deterrence through individual accountability.
🔍 Conclusion
Cartels are one of the most egregious violations of competition law. In jurisdictions like the US, UK, and Canada, such behaviour carries criminal penalties, including imprisonment for individuals. Other jurisdictions, such as the EU and India, focus more on administrative fines, but are moving towards harsher individual accountability.
Criminal overlaps generally occur when:
The conduct involves dishonest intent
There is evidence of active concealment or fraud
The impact is systematic and wide-ranging
Many regulators now use leniency programs, whistleblower protections, and cross-border cooperation to detect and deter cartel behaviour.
RELATED Blog
0 comments