By:
, , &The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) initially released the Guidelines on Antitrust Compliance for Undertakings on September 18, 2020. Subsequently, on March 21, 2024, SAMR introduced a draft for public comments concerning the revised Guidelines on Antitrust Compliance for Undertakings, now referred to as the “New Compliance Guidelines.” This revised version offers more comprehensive explanations and recommendations regarding the establishment of antitrust compliance management systems for undertakings. Notably, it includes a significant number of relevant examples. A key feature of the New Compliance Guidelines is the incorporation of an antitrust compliance incentive mechanism. This mechanism allows antitrust enforcement agencies discretion in considering the implementation of such systems when evaluating undertakings’ antitrust behaviors and making decisions regarding enforcement.
This article aims to explore how undertakings can effectively interpret and apply the provisions of the New Compliance Guidelines, specifically focusing on the antitrust compliance incentive mechanisms, in practical scenarios. The objective is to provide undertakings with guidance for establishing and enhancing internal antitrust compliance management systems.
- Antitrust Compliance Incentive Scenarios Articles 34 to 37 of the New Compliance Guidelines outline four scenarios for antitrust compliance incentives:
1.1 Pre-Investigation Compliance Incentives Article 34 of the New Compliance Guidelines delineates Pre-Investigation Compliance Incentives. It states: “Where undertakings cease suspected monopolistic behaviors before investigation by the antitrust enforcement agency, and these behaviors are minor and non-harmful to competition, the enforcement agencies may consider the establishment and implementation of antitrust compliance management systems when assessing whether corrective actions were taken promptly or whether there was subjective fault. Consequently, they may exercise discretion in not imposing administrative penalties in accordance with Article 33 of the Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China.”
Article 33 of the Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China outlines three circumstances where administrative penalties may not be imposed, including instances where the illegal behavior is minor and promptly corrected without harmful consequences, first-time minor violations that are promptly corrected, and situations where the party can provide evidence of the absence of subjective fault. Other provisions in laws and administrative regulations may also apply…
Featured News
Big Tech Braces for Potential Changes Under a Second Trump Presidency
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
Trump’s Potential Shift in US Antitrust Policy Raises Questions for Big Tech and Mergers
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU Set to Fine Apple in First Major Enforcement of Digital Markets Act
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Six Indicted in Federal Bid-Rigging Schemes Involving Government IT Contracts
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Ireland Secures First €3 Billion Apple Tax Payment, Boosting Exchequer Funds
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI