1. Antitrust Enforcement on Cartels (Asian Perspective) MM Sharma Head, Competition Law and Policy 3rd CUTS-CIRC Biennial Conference on Competition Reforms : Emerging Challenges in a Globalizing World, November, 18-19, 2013 New Delhi

2. Scheme of Presentation  Treatment of Cartels Across Select Jurisdictions (Civil Or Criminal)  Antitrust in Asia – A Snap-shot  Cartel Enforcement in Asian Countries – Recent Penalties  Leniency programme in Asian Countries 2

3. Treatment of Cartels Across Select Jurisdictions 3 Only Civil Liability Civil Liability + Criminal Liability (for Individuals) IndiaUnited States of America ChinaUnited Kingdom South AfricaCanada European UnionAustralia FranceNew Zealand SingaporeJapan ItalySwitzerland NetherlandsGermany SwedenKorea TurkeyBrazil BelgiumRussia

4. Antitrust in Asia – A Snapshot 4  Similarity with EU and US Structure.  Emerging awareness against competition law infringements.  Hong Kong, Malaysia and recently UAE introduce competition law.  Pakistan reports first case of leniency. Introduces a Reward scheme to attract whistle blowers to report on violations.  Singapore makes its first finding on abuse of dominance.  South Korea increases rewards for whistleblowers.  Taiwan introduces a leniency program.  Heavy fines imposed by India, Pakistan, Korea and China on cartels.

5. Cartel Enforcement in Asia – Recent Cases South Korea Four dairy companies : Fine of $9.8 million Twelve life insurance companies : Fine $315 million Oil refiners : Fine $212.7 million) Four schoolbook publishers : Fine 900 million won (€640,000) Nuclear power plant suppliers: 6.35 billion won (€4.4 million) Cathode ray tubes makers: 54.5 billion won (€36 million) China Two Pharma Companies : Fine RMB 7 million (USD 1.1 million) Top liquor makers for RPM: Fine 449 million yuan ($ 71.92 million) Six liquid crystal display (LCD) manufacturers : Fine $ 56 million Six producers of baby formula : Fine $110 million. Five jewelers and their trade association: Fine US$ 1.7 million (10.59 million yuan)

6. Cartel Enforcement in Asia – Recent Cases India Cement Manufacturer : Fine Rs. 6307 Crores (Pending Appeal) LPG Cylinder Manufacturer: Fine Rs 165.58 Crores (Pending Appeal) Aluminium Phosphide Tablets: Fine Rs. 10 Crores (COMPAT) Explosive Manufacturers: Rs. 5.8 Crores (COMPAT) Shoe Makers: Rs. 6.5 Crores (Pending Appeal) Pakistan Electrical Equipments Cartel : Leniency to Siemens ( Case pending) Banks : Fine Rs 770 million 14 long-distance call telecoms operators : Fine Rs. 9 billion rupees (€69 million) 20 medical centers : Rs 450 million Singapore 11 modelling agencies for cartelization :Fine $ 0.36 Million. Motor vehicle traders : S$179,000 (€113,000) 16 employment agencies: S$153,000 (€87,000)

7. Cartel Enforcement in Asia – Recent Cases Japan Bearing manufacturers : Fine 13.4 billion yen ($142 million) Starch makers: ¥255 million (€2 million) Sugar syrup makers: USD $26.8 million Construction companies : ¥1.7 billion (€17 million) Taiwan Nine power companies : NT$6.2 billion (€162 million) Four major convenience store chains: NT$20 million (€484,000) Three paper companies :NT$10 million (€235,000)

8. Leniency Programme in Asian Countries  In Sync with those in the European Commission and USA. A common trend of encouraging a “rush to” the competition authority with leniency benefits on “first cum first served” basis.  In CHINA,INDIA,JAPAN,PAKISTAN,SOUTH KOREA- A general trend- 100% reduction to First applicant; Up to 50% to the Second and Up to 30% to the third applicant. No further reductions for subsequent applicants, except in Japan ( up to 30% to first 3 applicants only thereafter) and Taiwan ( up to 50% to first 4 applicants only thereafter).  KOREA,PAKISTAN-introduced a Reward Scheme.  SINGAPORE-introduced “Leniency Plus ”- to encourage those members of the cartel who could not get benefit under the Leniency scheme earlier. 8 Privileged & Confidential

9. Disclaimer This presentation is intended to provide general information in a summary form. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular matters Thank You 9 E-mail- mmsharma@vaishlaw.com mmsharma@vaishlaw.com