can the new antimonopoly act change the japanese business community?
DESCRIPTION
Can the New Antimonopoly Act Change the Japanese Business Community?. The 2005 Amendment to Antimonopoly Act and Corporate Compliance Kazukiyo Onishi. Introduction: Japanese Antitrust Regime and Business Community. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Can the New Antimonopoly Act Change the Japanese Business
Community?
The 2005 Amendment to Antimonopoly Act and Corporate Compliance
Kazukiyo Onishi
Introduction: Japanese Antitrust Regime and Business Community
• Antimonopoly Act, a comprehensive and advanced antitrust law was introduced and JFTC was set up in 1947: Long history of antitrust enforcement, but this regime did not work well
• It was said for a long time: Existence of many hard core cartels, especially bid riggings and Japanese Business Community did not think highly of AMA
• The situation is changing after 2005 amendment to AMA• 2005 amendment provides the JFTC with measures to fight
cartels: Leniency Program and Criminal Investigation Power• Successful crackdowns on big bid riggings involved by big and
famous companies
Recent Important Cases
Recent Criminal Cases from 2002 to 2007
Date Case
May 2007 Bid rigging over main forest road projects procured by Japan Green Resources Agency
Feb. 2007 Bid rigging over subway construction procured by Nagoya City
May 2006 Bid rigging over human waste disposal facilities construction procured by local municipalities
May 2005 Bid rigging over steel bridge construction procured by the Japan Highway Public Corporation and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
July 2003 Bid rigging over water meters procured by Tokyo Metropolis
Recent Bid Rigging Cases prosecuted by the Japanese Penal
CodeDate Case
October to December 2006
Three Governors of Fukushima, Wakayama and Miyazaki Prefectures were prosecuted for assisting bid riggings
January 2006 The Deputy Director-General, the Defense Facilities Administration Agency and two other officials were prosecuted for assisting bid riggings
December 2005 Two managers, Tokyo International Airport Authority were prosecuted for assisting bid riggings
Brief History of Japanese Legislation and Enforcement
Basic Structure of the AMA
Original Penalties in the AMA
History of the Number of JFTC’s Employees
Year 1947 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008
Employees 284 316 238 351 422 474 564 795
Increase 32 -78 113 71 52 90 231
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Employees 558 564
571 607 643 672 706 737 765 795
Increase 6 8 7 36
36 29 34 31 28 30
2005 Amendment to the AMA
Introduction of Surcharges in 1977
Argument over Surcharges in 2005
Surcharge and Criminal Fines for Corporations
Reform of Surcharge in 2005
History of Surcharge Rates(small businesses)
Year Basic Retailers Wholesalers
1977 1.5% 1.0% 0.5%
1991 6.0% (3.0%) 2.0% (1.0%) 1.0% (1.0%)
2005 10.0% (4.0%) 3.0% (1.2%) 2.0% (1.0%)
Australia and Japan: Criminal and Administrative Fines
Australia: Draft Bill for Corporations
Japan : Concurrent Fines for Corporations
Australia and Japan: Level of Penalties
Australia: Administrative fine (maximum) Japan: Criminal and Administrative
Penalties against Cartels in Other Countries
The Number of Legal Measures taken by the JFTC
Fiscal Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
Bid Rigging 30 14 22 13 6 85(65.9%)
Price Cartel 2 3 2 4 3
14(10.9%)
Private Monopolisation 0
1 2 0 0 3(2.3%)
Unfair Trade Practices 3 7 8 2 4 24 (18.6%)
Others 2 0 1 0 0 3(2.3%)
Total 37 25 35 19 13 129(100%)
Penalties against Bid rigging
Japanese Leniency Program
Leniency Program and Corporate Compliance
Effective Leniency Program
Conclusion