By Jean Pierre Matus Acuña (University of Chile)
The paper shows that price agreements between suppliers of consumer goods are not currently punishable in Chile, according to the correct interpretation of the rules that have been invoked to that end, Articles 285 and 473 of the Criminal Code, and the historical evolution of the regulation and punishment of offenses against free competition, today delivered exclusively to the administrative authority and a special court created for that purpose. At the same time, it is shown that the principle that a general law can be applied when the special law is repealed, it can be argued that when previously general law (or the relevant part) has been repealed because it would mean a violation of the guarantee of the principle of legality, which involves the application of existing laws at the time of commission of the offenses.
Download Full Article: HERE
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
FTC Targets Oil Executive John Hess Over Alleged Collusion with OPEC
Sep 30, 2024 by
CPI
Chevron Clears Major Hurdle in Hess Merger as FTC Approves Antitrust Review
Sep 30, 2024 by
CPI
Germany Targets Microsoft in Latest Antitrust Action Against Big Tech
Sep 30, 2024 by
CPI
Judge Dismisses Antitrust Claims Against Thomson Reuters in Legal Search Battle
Sep 30, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Games Files Fresh Antitrust Lawsuit Targeting Google and Samsung
Sep 30, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh