Name:

Word Count:

Title: Illegal Cartel dealings inside Australia

Introduction

Shipping cartels are illegal in Australia, and right now, following the WWO conviction, it is illegal to ship cartels, and it is illegal for any business to agree to act in a cartel instead of competing, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. As coined by Freiberg (2019), illegal cartel activity focuses on cheating customers and other businesses; it also restricts healthy economic growth and drives up the prices of every product and service, as well as reducing the chances of innovation and more investments. There are four types of cartel activities present: price fixing, market sharing, achieving beats, and controlling overall output. Most of the time, individuals and proper businesses are involved. A cartel starts to conduct criminal and other activities that cause criminal and civil penalties, including jail terms. This paper identifies the criminal activity of the shipping cartel inside Australia and the domestic and international responses to this illegal activity.

Background

Cartel in Australia has existed for more than 60 years, and it mainly took place when different businesses belonging to the same industry made agreements to grow their businesses together instead of competing with each other. Such malpractices have been identified as having a negative impact not only on the industry in which the businesses operate but also on other industries, posing a particular threat to local businesses (Edgar, 2019). Air cargo services, photocopy paper, air conditioning, freight, and fire protection systems are just a few of the products and businesses involved in such malpractices in Australia. It has been identified that this criminal offence damages law-abiding businesses, increases the product pricing artificially, and negatively impacts the entire supply chain, which causes the businesses and other customers to pay more for the product. On the other hand, it also inflates the capital cost for building the supply chain and warehouses, as well as the operational costs like rent and interest, as well as the opportunity cost. Due to this, small and medium-sized businesses could not get proper investment as cartels initially blocked the entry of new players by lowering the amount of investment and increasing the loan interest for defending the market position. Apart from that, limiting all resources for doing good business within the industry, raising taxes, and reducing service accessibility all have a negative impact on both the private and public sectors, extracting additional costs from consumers through high rates and taxes (CHRISTOPHER and BLAINE, 2022). There are anti-competitive conduct-related legislations in Australia that present a war against the law and do not differ from Mania; they specifically define and prohibit various types of cartels within the country and imply civil and criminal penalties. The provision of cartels also has a purposeful impact on customers and suppliers, as well as territory allocation to the businesses, and it also brings collusive tendering and makes it more difficult for the small business owner to practise business in a proper way. On a similar note, price fixing is another thing that makes different companies in a similar industry compete, and it implements a great formula for pricing or discounted goods and services as well as agreed-upon repeat and allowances as well as credit terms.

Domestic Responses

As per the Australian competition law, shipping cartel is very much prohibited, and it is mainly provided by part IV India division one as per the competition and consumer act which also defines the civil and criminal cartel, Konda. As suggested by Fisse (2018), the domestic Australian act also encompasses agreements between the competitors for fixing the product and service pricing and dividing the markets as well as restricting the business output. Inda November 6, 2017, the section 45 was incorporated into the Australian competition law that prohibits anti-competitive consulting practices. As per the Harper review final report, it is recommended that the competition and consumer act 2017 also include a cartel immunity policy on which the first party who will come forward gets a certain criterion and also gets benefits from the ACCC cooperation policy. As per the Australian legislation, part IV, restrictive trade practices subdivision Ae produces the criminal offence provisions and related provisions, whereas the division 2 inclusion 45 contract is focused on anti-competitive agreement legislation pages. It also has been identified from the media reports that shipping cartel Naav fined a total of 83.5 million, and there were nearly three different international shipping companies are present inside Australia who was involved in this cartel shipping trade and was also fined 25 million each. In June 2011 and July 2012, the Federal Court of Australia found the multinational shipping company aadnaav getting impacted by the cartel provision through the allocation of major vehicle manufacturers, and it is also making changes in certain shipping routes to the port of Australia. In the case of the shipping cartel, Justice Wigney gives a statement that it is the third most criminal prosecution which is arising from the global perspective towards the Australian market, and it came caused Ah heavy economic loss to the Australia’s GDP. It is one of the most serious offences and goes against the Australian law, which prohibits cartel conduct, and it also has been identified that there are proper involvement planning is present that implies a very big seriousness to WWO contact, and it is not entitled to any material discount code Anik operation which is currently working with ACCC. There are multiple conspiracies that are presently related to this malpractice as the national government of Australia does not have any jurisdiction on which the competition Ko directly gets applied to cartel conduct in different circumstances. The prosecutorial burden is also demanded from the enforcers to meet all the high standards and proof as well as fairness on which the criminal code legitimately demands of different prosecution and investigators. Inside Australia, there are more than 60 years of enactment of Australia’s cartel law. In 1906 was partially implemented and involved miners and Shepard from hunter valley in new South wales. There is multiple cases present which directly focuses on cartel crimes inside Australia, and one of the notorious case is the fine paper cartel. This case happened between 2000 and 2004, and there are several international companies Aaru volumes in this case for selling the final paper inside the Australian market, and all these international companies are also known as AAA club. The main motive of all of these companies is selling fine paper at a price fixed agreement for the supply of coffee and the other papers also in the markets of Australia and any other geographical region. There are multiple secret meetings took place within this club in the Southeast Asian countries and these countries did not have anti-trust laws at the time. In between 2010 and 2011, the law of Australia penalised for more than 8 million, and the Federal Court of Australia also banned this company so that they could not repeat their conduct, and they also gave 550000 as a legal cost.

International Responses

It has been identified that in between the years 2020 and 2021 there are multiple cases took place in the international region that is related to the global shipping companies for conducting this cartel business. On February 20 21, the central coast of Australia convicted WWO of criminal cartel conduct, and in the year 2021, the charge is directly related to conducting all the international shipping of vehicles inside the Australian territory directly comes under the competition and consumer act 2010. There are different synapses are present between June 2011 and July 2012 which directly impacted the provision in the agreement for reaching the competitors inside the supply chain of ocean shipping services. There are two different parties was involved in the conduct of WWO, and all these two different parties are udya agreement on the rule of respect and guiding principle as it directly indicates all the parties in this agreement and allocating certain customers between themselves and international shipping routes including the Australian shipping routes. After making severe investigation, it has been identified the outcome of this agreement was the culmination of extensive and complex criminal activities, and the investigation was also successful as there are three different international shipping companies found that guilty and a total fine of 83 million was imposed on all these three different international shipping companies. It also has been identified that an additional 25 million for each company was fined HDR for violating the trade routes of Australia and also the assistance from the US Department of Justice and Federal bureau of investigation as well as the Japan fair trade commission and European Commission was also involved in this investigation which helps to tackle the criminal offences inside the international shipping routes and the strong shipping networks between all the competitions agencies currently have in their worldwide channels. In the year 2020, WWO pleaded guilty, and they also held up all the charges intentionally giving effect to all the provisions, and they admitted they are guilty of all the further offences they are conducting the provision from November 2009, which is also considered as sentencing. There is a general deterrence us present for sentencing offences which are very much difficult to detect and investigate and however also impose meant of penalties for anti-competitive conduct in the civil penalty context were imposed on all these three companies which Finally ended the shipping cartel problem inside the Australian market (Beaton-Wells and Clarke, 2018). In the international market, it is also causing various challenges related to price-fixing, and yet another case study was coming from Queen’s land regarding the construction material selling over the price. Between 24 and 27 there, three construction companies are present in Queensland, Australia who, are making proper bidding for different government projects, and sometimes These companies are misleading the clients by signing differing statements that include Not to collide with the competitors during the bidding process. Cover pricing is another problem in this field which is creating major challenges and there to potential suppliers follow tender is also creating problems, and this is giving the client a false impression that the both the companies are tendering competitively, and by the exchange of copper pricing, both the companies are sharing their profit from that construction cost, and in 2011 the Australian federal court also described this as illegal price controlling conduct And also they have identified all the false statement made by the construction company as a betrayal of trust (Puttick, 2021). All these three companies were found guilty under the code procedure, and they have been penalised 1.3 million also, the individuals belong from the company Var panel light by 80,000 Dollar which ended up being the keys. Therefore it can be said that cartel is a very big challenge not only inside domestic but also for the international market, and it is a major challenge not only for the big companies but also the small and regional companies as they could not make high competition inside the region and the faze high level of losses.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that cartels are very much challenging inside the domestic and international markets, and it is very much difficult to stop the malpractices inside the domestic and international markets. First of all, these companies discourage new entrants from making market entries, and they have an enormous amount of power and resources through which they can make price-fixing agreements with other companies, which leads to a lack of innovation. It also has been identified that this type of company makes non-collusive agreements and does not seek to improve their production or to gain the competitive ages. Sometimes the involvement of local and national governments also makes it very much difficult to remove, and as their new entrants are present inside the market, therefore, it becomes very much challenging to remove all these companies from specific industries; otherwise, the industry would collapse, and the customers will not get the products in the prices. It also has been identified a huge amount of bribes provided to the government employees and some of the time tax departments to cover all the profits this company is made from the following market, and they also started to make tax theft which negatively impacted the country’s economy.

References

Freiberg, A., 2019. Researching white‐collar crime: An Australian perspective. The handbook of white‐collar crime, pp.418-436.

Edgar, L., 2019. Cartel class actions in Australia: Risks vs rewards. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW, 27(3), pp.183-192.

CHRISTOPHER, A. and Blair, L., 2022. The evolution of Australia’s cartel jurisprudence: Guidance on the use of informal merger clearance documents in competition law proceedings and witness evidence of inducement to form a cartel. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF COMPETITION AND CONSUMER LAW, 30(1), pp.46-50.

Fisse, B., 2018. Australian Cartel Law: Biopsies. Sydney Law School Research Paper, (18/27).

Puttick, T., 2021. Cutting through a cacophony of critiques: Improved recidivism within construction cartels. INHOUSE COUNSEL, 25(5/6), pp.79-82.

Beaton-Wells, C. and Clarke, J.N., 2018. Corporate financial penalties for cartel conduct in Australia: A critique. Available at SSRN 3149143.

Get expert help for LCR2001 Assessment 2 and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!