michelle pionkowski trial attorney u.s. department of justice, antitrust division
DESCRIPTION
Antitrust Division Criminal Enforcement Program Presentation on Antitrust Violations & Prosecutions. Michelle Pionkowski Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division Philadelphia Office Direct Dial: (215) 597-7568 [email protected] - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Antitrust Division Criminal Enforcement Program
Presentation on Antitrust Violations & Prosecutions
Michelle PionkowskiTrial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division Philadelphia Office
Direct Dial: (215) [email protected]
American Apparel & Footwear Association
Government Contract Committee Spring MeetingMarch 24, 2006
2
Criminal Sections
Seven Field Offices & One D.C. Section:• Atlanta • Chicago
• Cleveland • Dallas
• NCES • New York
• Philadelphia • San Francisco
3
Sherman Antitrust Act(1890)
Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade is
declared to be illegal.
4
What We Investigate & Prosecute
15 U.S.C. § 1: “Every contract, combination . . ., or conspiracy, in
restraint of trade or commerce . . .” is declared to be illegal.”
5
United States v. Topco Assoc.(U.S. Supreme Court 1972)
• “Antitrust laws in general and the Sherman Act in particular are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms.”
6
Antitrust Enforcement
• Criminal Enforcement
• Merger Review
• Monopolies and Other Civil Violations
7
Criminal Enforcement
• Punishment
• Restitution for Victims
• Return to Competitive Markets
8
What We Investigate & Prosecute
Agreements Among Competitors To:Fix Prices Rig BidsAllocate Markets (Customer/Territories)Allocate Sales Volumes/Restrict Output
9
What We Investigate & Prosecute
• Related Crimes:Mail & Wire Fraud - 18 U.S.C. § 1341, 1343
Attempts To Fix Prices
Conspiracy To Commit Mail Or Wire Fraud -
18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1349 False Statements To Government Agency - 18 U.S.C. § 1001 Bribery - 18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 666
10
What We Investigate & Prosecute
• Related Crimes:Conspiracy To Defraud U.S. - 18 U.S.C. § 371Money Laundering - 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957Aiding & Abetting - 18 U.S.C. § 2Tax Offenses - 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201, 7206
11
What We Investigate & Prosecute
• Crimes Threatening Integrity Of InvestigationsPerjury and False Declarations To Grand Jury –
18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 1623Obstruction Of Justice - 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1510, 1512, 1519False Statements - 18 U.S.C. § 1001 Criminal Contempt - 18 U.S.C. §§ 401, 402
12
Price Fixing
• Contrary to what it sounds like, price fixing does not only mean that people have agreed to specific prices, or agreed to always charge the same exact price
• Price fixing is an agreement or understanding between two or more persons to tamper with price competition
13
Forms of Price-Fixing
• Agreements among competitors to:– Charge the same price– Raise prices– Eliminate discounts– Establish a minimum price– Establish a standard pricing formula
14
Price Fixing
• Price Fixing is illegal – Even if the parties to the agreement did not
eliminate all forms of competition among themselves; or
– If some parties cheated on the agreement; or– Even if the agreement was not as successful as
the members intended
15
Price Fixing
• Like any criminal conspiracy, it is the agreement to act together that is the crime
• Whether the agreement is actually carried out or whether it succeeds or fails does not matter
16
Price Fixing
• There does not need to be a formal, express or written agreement among the co-conspirators
• Evidence need only show that co-conspirators came to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful goal (“meeting of the minds”)
17
Price-Fixing is Per Se Illegal
• Illegal in and of itself because of its inhibiting effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue
• Illegal without elaborate inquiry into the precise harm caused by or the business excuse for the conduct
18
Bid Rigging
Any agreement between competitors concerning who will bid, what the bids will be, or who
will be the low bidder.
19
Forms of Bid Rigging
• Agreements among competitors to:– Divide projects or contracts– Rotate projects or contracts– Submit intentionally high bids or refrain from
bidding altogether in return for a payoff or the promise of a future project or contract
20
Things That Make You Go Hmmm(Indicators of Collusion)
• Bid Patterns Over Time
• Clues in Bid Documents
• Non-Competitive Pricing
• Vendor Comments
• Sham Bidders
21
United States v. Atlantic Disposal
Bid Documents
1. Few Bidders2. Atlantic Disposal Always Won3. Common Typeface4. Common Mathematical Errors5. Subcontracts to Losing Bidders6. Sham Bidder
22
Bid Rigging at WorkBoston Globe, November 3, 1991
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
The average price per pound of ocean perch sold by New England fish processors to the Dept. of Defense rose and fell in line with the power of the cartel.
23
WHEN Might Collusion Occur?
• Few Sellers/Friendly Competitors
• Restrictive Specifications
• Standardized (Commodity) Product
• Repetitive Purchases
• International Trade
24
HOW Do Antitrust Conspiracies Work?
• Opportunity to Scheme
• Means to Divide Illegal Overcharge
• Method of Communication
• Mechanism to Monitor the Agreement
25
Why?
• Very Effective Way to Overcharge (make a lot of money)
• Very Difficult to Detect and/or Convict
• Conspirators “Justify” Overcharges
• Modest Penalties (Not anymore!)
26
The Cost of Collusion
• Conspiracies are Lengthy
• Often Spread to Other Goods and Services
• The Result is that Victims are Overcharged and Defrauded
27
$4.2 millionCompany C
$5.1 millionCompany B
$4.8 millionCompany A
ElectricalContracting
AgreedPost-Bid
Company C withdraws winning bid in exchange for a subcontract atinflated price from Company A.
Subcontracting to Losing Bidders
28
Subcontracting to Losing Bidders
$5.5 millionCompany C
$5.1 millionCompany B
$4.8 millionCompany A
ElectricalContracting
AgreedPre-Bid
Company C bids $5.5 million, but later accepts a subcontract fromCompany A at an inflated price.
29
Complementary Bids
Bandages
Year 1 Frass $10.00 Brenner $13.00
Year 2 Frass $12.00 Brenner $15.00
Year 3 Frass $14.00 Brenner $17.00
Medical Boxes
Brenner $10.00Frass $13.00
Brenner $12.00Frass $15.00
Brenner $14.00Frass $17.00
30
Rotation of BidsMen’s Outdoor Gloves
Firm A $10.00Firm B $12.00Firm C $13.00Firm D $14.00
Men’s Dress Gloves
Firm C $10.00Firm D $12.00Firm A $13.00Firm B $14.00
Women’s Outdoor Gloves
Firm B $10.00Firm C $12.00Firm D $13.00Firm A $14.00
Women’s Dress Gloves
Firm D $10.00Firm A $12.00Firm B $13.00Firm C $14.00
31
Forms ofAllocation Agreements
• Agreements among competitors to:– Allocate customers– Allocate territories– Allocate sales volumes– Allocate production volumes– Allocate market shares– Allocate market growth
32
Where are these cartelconspiracies operating?
• Everywhere– Our investigations have uncovered meetings of
international cartels in well over 100 cities in more than 35 countries
– Domestic illegal antitrust conspiracies have been prosecuted in virtually every judicial district in the United States
04/19/23 Click here to type in text for footer
34
Who Are CommonCo-Conspirators?
• Corporate Executives– Intelligent– Confident– Wealthy– Powerful– Profit Driven
35
11
The Executive’s Decision to Enter a Cartel
• Premeditated decision
• Classic cost-benefit analysis
• Executive weighs the:
Rewards:
• Money
• Market share
Risks:• Punishment
(Sanctions)• Getting caught
(Detection)
36
“They [the customers] are not my friends. You’re my friend. I
wanna be closer to [my competitor] than I am to any customer. ‘Cause
you can make us . . . money.”
-Terry Wilson, ADM Vice President--Serving a 33 month
prison sentence
37
“If no one talks, everyone walks.”
“We can hang together, or hang separately.”
38
Cornerstones of EffectiveAnti-Cartel Enforcement
• Severe sanctions against companies and executives who participate in the illegal activity
• Fear of detection
• Clear enforcement policies
39
Threat of Severe Sanctions
• Maximum Criminal Penalties for offenses committed on or after June 2004:– Individuals: 10 years in jail & $1 million fine– Corporations: $100 million fine– Alternative Fine: Double the gain or double the
loss caused by the illegal activity
40
Threat of Severe Sanctions• Obstruction of Justice Penalties:
– Perjury: 5 years in jail & $250,000 fine
– False Statements: 5 years in jail & $250,000 fine
– Document Destruction: 20 years in jail & $250,000 fine
– Witness Tampering: 20 years in jail & $250,000 fine
– Bribery: 15 years in jail & greater of $250,000 or three times the amount of the bribe
41
How Investigations Get Started
• Spin-offs from Existing Fraud Cases
• Anonymous Complaints
• Amnesty
• Purchasing Agents
• Proactive Contract Review
42
Most Effective Investigative Tool -
Division’s 1993 Corporate Leniency Policy
No Criminal Prosecution For Self ReportingAll Cooperating Directors, Officers, Employees Of Qualifying Corporation Also Receive AmnestyCompany Must Cooperate Throughout InvestigationCompany Must Not Be “The” RingleaderCompany Must Terminate Conduct Promptly and Effectively Upon DiscoveryCompany Must Pay Restitution To Victims BUT -- Only The First To Qualify Gets It Strict Confidentiality Policy
43
Benefits Of Corporate Leniency Policy
Detection Of Cartels That Otherwise Would Remain Undetected Prosecution Of Co-ConspiratorsOpportunity For Covert OperationsAccess To Documents Regardless Of LocationAccess To Witnesses Regardless Of Nationality
44
Corporate Leniency Policy
Obligation To Cooperate Throughout InvestigationHammer – Violate Amnesty Agreement = Removal From Program
Subject To ProsecutionAll Evidence Provided May Be Used Against Company
45
Leniency Program’s Value
Major Role In Cracking International Cartels
Last Nine Years – Over $2.5 Billion In FinesNot So Much Absolution For The Guilty As It Is The Anti-Cartel Enforcer’s Most Potent Weapon
Allows Prosecution Of Co-Conspirators
46
Evidence Of Leniency Program’s Value
VitaminsF. Hoffmann-La Roche - $500 MillionBASF $225 Million
DRAMInfineon $160 MillionHynix $185 MillionSamsung $300 Million
Graphite ElectrodesUCAR $110 MillionSGL $135 MillionMitsubishi $134 Million
Fine Arts AuctionsSotheby’s $ 45 Million
47
Amnesty For Cooperating Executives
Could Be The Program’s Biggest RewardGraphite Electrodes -Amnesty Executives = No Prosecution; UCAR Executives = 17 Months; 9 Months; & Indicted FugitiveVitamins - Amnesty Executives = No Prosecution; Six Hoffmann-La Roche and BASF Executives Jailed In USFine Arts Auctions - Amnesty Executives = No Prosecution; Sotheby’s Chairman = One Year In Jail
48
Use Of Alternative Fine Statute To Obtain Corporate Fines That Deter
(FY 1997)
FY 86 - 91 Average Fine Total - $27 MillionFY 97 - $205 MillionFY 99 – Over $1.1 Billion (Highest)FY 04 - Over $350 Million (2nd Highest)FY 05 - Over $338 Million (3rd Highest)Nine Years Ago Largest Fine - $2 Million Today - Nine Defendants $100+ Million51 Defendants - $10+ Million
49
Significant Jail Sentences Against Culpable Corporate Executives
(FY 2000)
FY 97 - Average Jail Sentence - 4 MonthsFY 00 – Average Jail Sentence – 10 MonthsFY 05 - Average Jail Sentence – 24 MonthsLongest Sentences In Division Prosecutions
August 2001 - 4 YearsNovember 2001 - 63 MonthsJanuary 2002 - 10 Years May 2005 – Over 11 Years
50
Antitrust Division Criminal Enforcement Program
Michelle PionkowskiTrial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Philadelphia OfficeDirect Dial: (215) 597-7568
51
Criminal Enforcement Program
We’ll End With A Scene From A Recent Cartel Meeting
52
Picnic
"I love the beauty, the break from family life, and the camaraderie---but what will always make this place
for me is the price-fixing."