SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Lim Chong Kin and Corinne Chew, Drew & Napier LLC
Commission clarified its position on commit - ments proposed by parties under investigation. The Commission has indicated that it will gener - ally not accept commitments in cases involving restrictions of competition by object, such as bid rigging, with no accompanying net economic benefit. 3. Leniency, Immunity and Whistle- Blower Regimes 3.1 Leniency Under the Commission’s leniency programme, an undertaking that applies for leniency may be granted the benefit of total immunity from finan - cial penalties if it: • is the first to provide the Commission with evidence of the cartel activity before an inves - tigation has commenced, provided that the Commission does not already have sufficient information to establish the existence of the alleged cartel activity; • provides the Commission with all the informa - tion, documents and evidence available to it regarding the cartel activity; • grants an appropriate waiver of confidentiality to the Commission in respect of other juris - dictions and regulatory authorities notified of the conduct and/or from which leniency has been sought; • unconditionally admits liability to the conduct for which leniency is sought; • maintains continuous and complete co-oper - ation throughout the investigation and until the conclusion of any action by the Commis - sion arising as a result of the investigation; • refrains from further participation in the cartel activity from the time of disclosure of the car - tel activity to the Commission (except as may be directed by the Commission);
• is not responsible for initiating the cartel; and • has not taken any steps to coerce another undertaking to take part in the cartel activity. After the Commission has commenced an inves - tigation, any reduction in the level of financial penalty will be at the Commission’s discretion. The first party that provides information to the Commission about the cartel that is sufficient for it to issue an infringement decision can receive lenient treatment by way of a reduction of up to 100% in the level of the financial penalties. Sub - sequent applicants may benefit from reduced financial penalties of up to 50%. In addition, the leniency programme in Singa - pore is also supplemented by a marker system and a Leniency Plus system. The Marker System The marker system is available to undertakings that cannot immediately provide all the informa - tion, documents and evidence regarding the car - tel activity, provided that the Commission has not announced its intention to make a decision on whether the Section 34 Prohibition has been infringed. An applicant who obtains a marker will secure a position in the queue for immunity or a reduction in the financial penalty of up to 100%, while the Commission grants the applicant a limited period to gather the necessary informa - tion, documents and evidence. If the applicant is unable to perfect the marker by providing the necessary information, documents and evidence within the time period specified, the Commis - sion may grant extensions on a case-by-case basis. If the applicant fails to perfect the marker, the next applicant in the marker queue will be eligible to obtain immunity or a reduction in the financial penalty of up to 100%. Once the marker has been perfected, the other applicants in the marker queue will be informed that they no long -
306 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook