메이저 바카라사이트

1. Case background

□ Immediately after the Korean Fair Trade Commission’s on-site investigation of bid-fixing had been initiated, the petitioner filed for the leniency program with the Korean Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”), and the KFTC exempted the petitioner from all sanctions such as a correction order and surcharges, recognizing its cooperation with the KFTC’ investigation. However, the owner of the project (the “Owner”) took a measure of restricting the petitioner’s eligibility to participate in the bidding on the ground that the petitioner was an illegitimate trader engaging in bid-rigging (the “Restriction Measure”).

□ Filing for the reduction of liability for the Restriction Measure as a whistleblower under the Whistleblower Protection 메이저 바카라사이트 with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (“ACRC”), the petitioner requested us to represent it before the ACRC.


2. Result

The ACRC recognized that the petitioner needed to be exempted from liability as a whistleblower and decided to demand the Owner to “mitigate” the Restriction Measure.

□ After recognizing that the petitioner, who was a person first filing for the leniency program, was deemed as a whistleblower under the Whistleblower Protection 메이저 바카라사이트, the ACRC determined that the Restriction Measure had been taken for illegal acts discovered in relation to whistleblowing for public interests, and made a decision of demanding the Owner to “mitigate” the Restriction Measure.


3. Implication

□ Under the Fair Trade 메이저 바카라사이트, the leniency program is one of the antitrust tactics that is to fall apart collusive activities and prevent future collusive activities by encouraging whistleblowing and destroying trust among participants in collusion. The leniency program has become one of the most important and effective antitrust tactics.

□ However, companies engaging in collusion are reluctant to make a self-report for fear of sanction such as limitation of eligibility to participate in a bid even though they may obtain the mitigation of sanction through the leniency program or a petition for mitigation filed with the KFTC.

□ In this case, the Owner presented its opinion to the ACRC that it had been hard for it to find a reason to mitigate the Restriction Measure since the KFTC’s investigation had been initiated by the Owner’s report of a suspected cartel activity and the petitioner had filed for mitigation after the KFTC’ on-site investigation had been commenced and that the Owner could not agree to cancelling the Restriction Measure only for the reason that the petitioner had cooperated with the KFTC’ investigation.

□ Against the Owner’s assertion, we strongly explained that the first applicant for mitigation just like the petitioner had met elements constituting whistleblowing under the Whistleblowing Protection 메이저 바카라사이트, the Owner’s Restriction Measure had been based on an illegal 메이저 바카라사이트 discovered in relation to whistleblowing, and in the light of the leniency program, there had been a urgent necessity to mitigate liability imposed on the petitioner, and successfully convinced the ACRC to demand the Owner to mitigate the Restriction Measure.

□ The decision of the ACRC is expected to be a great help for the proper relief of rights of business operators who are subject to sanction for their collusive acts from contractors, but contribute to detecting cartel activities by filing for the leniency program with the KFTC and actively cooperate with investigators.