1 / 13

To enforce and comply – UK Experience

To enforce and comply – UK Experience. Andrea Appella Director of International ACLE, 5 th March 2009. Overview. The OFT’s focus is on delivering high-impact outcomes, not outputs. Compliance via deterrence (not case volume) and education.

ruth-knight
Télécharger la présentation

To enforce and comply – UK Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. To enforce and comply – UK Experience Andrea Appella Director of International ACLE, 5th March 2009

  2. Overview • The OFT’s focus is on delivering high-impact outcomes, not outputs. • Compliance via deterrence (not case volume) and education. • Criminal sanctions are strongest deterrent, but other factors also play an important role. • Prioritisation strategy is key to achieving good outcomes. • Evaluation: ex post, ex-ante and wider impact.

  3. OFT Framework Civil action Crim Action Penalties Undertakings Warnings Dialogue Established Means Self Regulation Education, Guidance & Advice

  4. Achieving deterrence - theory • Cartel gain vs probability of detection X penalty value • Gain from Cartel • 10 to 30 per cent above the competitive prices • Natural life of ‘typical’ cartel thought to be around 6 years • Likelihood of detection • Mainly public enforcement & Prioritisation of high impact cases • Example of why fines may not deter • E.g., prices 5 per cent higher for 6 years & detection rate of 25 per cent • 120% relevant turnover to deter: exceeds the statutory maximum

  5. Achieving deterrence - evidence • Deloitte survey (2007) shows deterrent effect for OFT enforcement: cartels • Legal survey 5:1 Company survey 16:1 • International experience • Criminal sanctions taken more seriously by companies and individuals • Other factors relevant to deterrence • Sanctions for individuals – criminal/ director disqualification • Adverse publicity (N.B. link to penalties) • Private damages actions

  6. Importance of current sanctions: focus on individual criminal penalties Lawyers Companies 1 Criminal penalties Criminal penalties 2 Fines Director disqualification 3 Director disqualification Bad publicity 4 Bad publicity Fines 5 Private damages Private damages Source: 2007 Deloitte Survey (pre-dates recent cases)

  7. OFT cartel enforcement in practice • First fruits of criminal cartel regime • Entry into force in June 2003 – not retrospective • First successful prosecutions in Marine hose • Significant prison sentences of between 2½ and 3 years (reduced on appeal) • Director disqualification of between 5 and 7 years • Confiscation orders • Charges brought against four current and former BA executives in Passenger fuel surcharge case • Use of criminal investigation powers • First search of domestic premises in Marine hose

  8. Significance of criminal penalties • Strong deterrence message • Concrete demonstration of personal risks for individuals of engaging in cartel conduct • Marine Hose: example of international cooperation in action • Additional impetus for compliance • Increase importance of competition compliance • Encourage a more proactive approach to compliance • Further destabilise cartels • Impetus for leniency • Virtuous circle of enforcement

  9. Virtuous Circle of Enforcement OFT Enforcement Action Impetus for Immunity Increased Deterrence Cartel Instability

  10. How to improve deterrence: legal advisor vs company views Lawyers Companies 1 Private damages Publicity and education 2 Criminal prosecutions More activity 3 Publicity and education Larger fines 4 Faster decision making Faster decision making 5 More activity Legal clarity Source: 2007 Deloitte Survey (pre-dates recent cases)

  11. Prioritisation is key for good outcomes Objectives of Prioritisation: • Making the best use of resources to maximise impact • Ensuring decisions about what work to undertake are taken consistently across the office • Identifying ex ante what we expect to achieve • Portfolio management • Clarity/creation of external expectation • Improving quality of complaints

  12. Prioritisation principles (October 2008) Impact Significance Risk Resources Risk: Expected risk at outset of project. Risk if we do not act Balance of four factors: Impact: Direct and indirect impact (including deterrence) on consumer welfare and the economy Resources: People and monetary resources needed Significance: Strategic impact, innovation, precedent setting, capacity building, whether OFT best placed to act The Principles are a tool for understanding and explaining what factors we take into account – they do not make decisions for us.

  13. Conclusions on the UK experience • A range of tools to achieve compliance • Enforcement is only one part of the framework • Education and guidance play equally important roles • Criminal sanctions are strongest deterrent • High financial penalties may not be sufficient to deter • Criminal cartel law is expensive! • OFT’s high-impact work recognised in NAO’s Report published today. Evaluation is leading to reflection and improvement. • International networks and organisations are important for sharing knowledge and best practices.

More Related