SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Lim Chong Kin and Corinne Chew, Drew & Napier LLC
time during the Commission’s investigations and before the Commission decides whether the Section 34 Prohibition has been infringed. The Commission will cease its investigations if it accepts these commitments. Legally binding commitments can be enforced by the Commis - sion through the courts under Section 85 of the Competition Act. The Fast-Track Procedure Separately, the Commission has “fast-track” pro - cedure to expedite the investigative timeframe for cases involving the infringement of the Sec - tion 34 Prohibition detailed in the Commission’s Practice Statement on the Fast Track Procedure for Section 34 and Section 47 Cases (the “Fast- Track Procedure” ). Under this procedure, parties that admit liability for their infringement will be eligible for a fixed percentage reduction in the financial penalty they are directed to pay pursu - ant to Section 69 (2)(e) of the Competition Act. This procedure is not mutually exclusive from the leniency regime, and a leniency applicant can benefit from discounts arising from both leniency and the Fast-Track Procedure. Notwithstanding the parties’ willingness to par - ticipate in the Fast-Track Procedure, the Com - mission retains broad discretion to determine whether the procedure would be suitable for the case under investigation. The Commission will initiate the Fast-Track Procedure where it is reasonably satisfied, based on the informa - tion the Commission has, that the evidentiary standard of proof has been met such that it would be prepared to issue a proposed infringe - ment decision or final infringement decision (as appropriate, given the stage of proceedings). It is understood that parties to such a procedure may not disclose any information received from their participation in this procedure to other third
parties, except with prior authorisation from the Commission. On 14 December 2020, the Fast-Track Proce - dure was applied for the first time in a bid-rigging decision involving three water features mainte - nance businesses – CU Water Services, Crys - talene Product (S) and Crystal Clear Contractor. In exchange for an admission of liability and co- operation with the Commission, the latter two companies benefited from a 10% reduction on their respective financial penalties. 5.3 Effect of Liability Being Established Any person who suffers loss or damage directly due to an infringement of the Section 34 Prohi - bition has a right of action for relief in civil pro - ceedings in a court against any undertaking that is or has at the material time been a party to such infringement. It should be noted, however, that no private action may be brought under the Competition Act until the Commission has issued an infringement decision and the appeal period has expired, or where an appeal has been brought, upon the determination of the appeal. 5.4 Sanctions and Penalties in Criminal Proceedings As noted in 1.2 Regulatory/Enforcement Agen- cies and Penalties , there is no criminal liability for infringements of competition law in Singa - pore, except for the ancillary offences relating to the failure to comply or co-operate when the Commission exercises its powers of investiga - tion. 5.5 History of Criminal Sanctions The highest financial penalty issued by the Commission for cartel conduct was a total of SGD26.9 million, against fresh chicken distribu - tors for price-fixing and agreeing not to compete across a seven-year period.
310 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook