Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Caron Beaton-Wells (University of Melbourne) and Christine Parker (Monash University) argue Justifying criminal sanctions for cartel conduct: a hard case
ABSTRACT: Competition authorities increasingly favour criminal sanctions for ‘hard core’ cartel conduct. However, the empirical case for criminalization is thin. This article reports on ‘first of its kind’ empirical research that interrogates the key justifications offered by enforcers in support of criminal cartel law enforcement. Based on an Australian case-study, but with implications for other jurisdictions, the research findings raise serious questions about claims regarding the deterrence impact of criminal sanctions and the inherent criminality of cartel conduct. The implications for the criminalization ‘movement’ are far-reaching. Specific implications for the advocacy and outreach strategies of competition authorities are discussed, with particular emphasis on how such strategies should be formulated so as to maximize their value, not just in securing deterrence, but ultimately in building compliance.
Featured News
Japan’s Nippon Steel Eyes Year-End Close on $15B US Steel Deal Amid Political Uncertainty
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
Canada Orders Dissolution of TikTok’s Business Amid National Security Concerns
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
India Raids Amazon, Flipkart Seller Offices in Foreign Investment Probe
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
Canada’s Competition Bureau Seeks Public Feedback on Updated Merger Guidelines
Nov 7, 2024 by
CPI
FTC Adopts Stricter Reporting Rules for Mergers, Delays Expected in 2025
Nov 7, 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