Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Vissa straffprocessuella frågor vid en kriminalisering av konkurrensrätten

Larsson, Jonas LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I propositionen till den nya konkurrenslagen som antogs 2008 öppnades möjligheten för individuellt ansvar vid överträdelser av konkurrensrätten. Sedan 2010 riskerar individer som deltar i konkurrensbegränsande samarbete att dömas till näringsförbud. En fråga som lyftes i samband med lagförslaget var huruvida en kriminalisering skulle vara möjlig inom ramen för konkurrensrätten. Frågan har lyfts flera gånger sedan en avkriminalisering skedde genom 1993 års konkurrenslag, men har inte lett till något lagförslag. Samtidigt firade USA:s antitrusträtt nyligen 120 år och har under denna period haft straffrättsliga verktyg att tillgå vid brott mot konkurrensrätten. Slutligen har Storbritanniens betydligt yngre kriminalisering genom Cartel Offence... (More)
I propositionen till den nya konkurrenslagen som antogs 2008 öppnades möjligheten för individuellt ansvar vid överträdelser av konkurrensrätten. Sedan 2010 riskerar individer som deltar i konkurrensbegränsande samarbete att dömas till näringsförbud. En fråga som lyftes i samband med lagförslaget var huruvida en kriminalisering skulle vara möjlig inom ramen för konkurrensrätten. Frågan har lyfts flera gånger sedan en avkriminalisering skedde genom 1993 års konkurrenslag, men har inte lett till något lagförslag. Samtidigt firade USA:s antitrusträtt nyligen 120 år och har under denna period haft straffrättsliga verktyg att tillgå vid brott mot konkurrensrätten. Slutligen har Storbritanniens betydligt yngre kriminalisering genom Cartel Offence numera existerat i över tio år, med blandade resultat.

Denna uppsats syftar till att utreda vilka straffprocessuella hinder som står i vägen för en kriminalisering inom konkurrensrätten. Särskilt fokus ligger på bl.a. frågan om förbudet mot dubbel lagföring, ne bis in idem, samt problematiken med att införa ett fungerande nedsättnings- och eftergiftsprogram vid en kriminalisering. En förutsättning för ett sådant program är stora förändringar av antingen åtalsplikten eller billighetsskälen. De ändringar som krävs brukar betecknas som ett kronvittnessystem, vilket syftar till att ge den tilltalade straffnedsättning mot att denne medverkar i utredningen av sin egen och andras brottslighet.

Tidigare i år har Högsta domstolen beslutat att förfarandet att vid skilda tillfällen påföra en individ både skattetillägg och fängelsestraff strider mot förbudet mot dubbel lagföring. Två betänkanden, som presenterats av Straffprocessutredningen och Påföljdsutredningen under 2012 och 2013, lyfter även fram frågor om ändringar både av billighetsskälen och av åtalsplikten. Om dessa föreslagna ändringar genomförs och om Högsta domstolens avgörande får konsekvenser utanför skatterättens område, kan Sverige vara ett steg närmare ett kronvittnessystem och i förlängningen en kriminalisering inom konkurrensrätten.

För att förstå frågan om en möjlig kriminalisering inom konkurrensrätten för Sveriges del görs även utblick mot Storbritannien och USA, vilka båda har kriminaliserat visst beteende inom konkurrensrätten. Uppsatsen beskriver respektive lands system för att ge läsaren ett vidare perspektiv på frågan om kriminalisering. Genom att inte se konkurrensrättens straffrättsliga sanktioner som ett isolerat rättsområde, utan som en del av ett lands straffrätt, ämnar uppsatsen att förklara varför en kriminalisering inte existerar inom svensk konkurrensrätt i dagsläget och besvara frågan varför dessa lösningar inte implementerats i Sverige. (Less)
Abstract
The Bill for the new Competition Act adopted in 2008, in Swedish competition law, opened for the possibility of individual liability for infringements of competition law. Since 2010 individuals participating in a cartel are liable to be sentenced to disqualification from commercial activities under the Disqualification Act of 1986. One issue raised in the context of the Bill was whether criminalization would be possible within the framework of competition law. The question has been raised several times since the decriminalization took place through the 1993 competition Act, but has as of yet not led to a legislative proposal. Meanwhile, the United States antitrust law recently celebrated 120 years and with it 120 years of criminalization.... (More)
The Bill for the new Competition Act adopted in 2008, in Swedish competition law, opened for the possibility of individual liability for infringements of competition law. Since 2010 individuals participating in a cartel are liable to be sentenced to disqualification from commercial activities under the Disqualification Act of 1986. One issue raised in the context of the Bill was whether criminalization would be possible within the framework of competition law. The question has been raised several times since the decriminalization took place through the 1993 competition Act, but has as of yet not led to a legislative proposal. Meanwhile, the United States antitrust law recently celebrated 120 years and with it 120 years of criminalization. Finally, United Kingdoms’ criminalization through the Cartel Offence has now existed for over ten years, with mixed results.

This paper aims to investigate the criminal procedural barriers that prevent criminalization in competition law. Particular focus is on the question of the prohibition on Double Jeopardy and the problems associated with the introduction of a functional leniency program in connection to a criminalization within competition law. A prerequisite for such a program is significant changes in either the duty to prosecute or the possibility of penalty reduction for individual reasons. The necessary changes are usually framed as a crown witness system, designed to give the defendant commutation of sentence in exchange for his or hers investigation of their own and others crimes.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided that the method of imposing both civil sanctions and prison sentences on different occasions against an individual, for tax fraud, violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Two reports presented by the Straffprocessutredningen and Påföljdsutredningen and released in 2012 and 2013, raise questions both about changes on equitable grounds and prosecution obligations. If these proposed changes are adopted into law, and if the Supreme Court's decision has implications beyond tax law area, Sweden can be one step closer to the crown witness system and, by extension, the criminalization of competition law.

To understand the issue of the possible criminalization of competition law in Sweden, the paper looks to the United Kingdom as well as the United States where criminalization has been carried out for certain conduct in competition law. The paper describes each country's system to give a better perspective on the issue of criminalization. By not looking at competition law's criminal sanctions as an isolated area of law, but as a part of a country's criminal justice this paper purposes to explain why criminalization does not exist within Swedish competition law, as well as answer to the question of why these solutions are not implemented in Sweden. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Larsson, Jonas LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Some criminal procedure issues at the criminalization of competition law
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Konkurrensrätt, USA, Storbritannien, Sverige, Antitrust, Antitrusträtt, Näringsförbud, Billighetsskäl, Åtalsplikt, Straffrätt, Kriminalisering.
language
Swedish
id
3966447
date added to LUP
2013-09-23 08:29:28
date last changed
2013-09-23 08:29:28
@misc{3966447,
  abstract     = {The Bill for the new Competition Act adopted in 2008, in Swedish competition law, opened for the possibility of individual liability for infringements of competition law. Since 2010 individuals participating in a cartel are liable to be sentenced to disqualification from commercial activities under the Disqualification Act of 1986. One issue raised in the context of the Bill was whether criminalization would be possible within the framework of competition law. The question has been raised several times since the decriminalization took place through the 1993 competition Act, but has as of yet not led to a legislative proposal. Meanwhile, the United States antitrust law recently celebrated 120 years and with it 120 years of criminalization. Finally, United Kingdoms’ criminalization through the Cartel Offence has now existed for over ten years, with mixed results. 

This paper aims to investigate the criminal procedural barriers that prevent criminalization in competition law. Particular focus is on the question of the prohibition on Double Jeopardy and the problems associated with the introduction of a functional leniency program in connection to a criminalization within competition law. A prerequisite for such a program is significant changes in either the duty to prosecute or the possibility of penalty reduction for individual reasons. The necessary changes are usually framed as a crown witness system, designed to give the defendant commutation of sentence in exchange for his or hers investigation of their own and others crimes.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided that the method of imposing both civil sanctions and prison sentences on different occasions against an individual, for tax fraud, violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Two reports presented by the Straffprocessutredningen and Påföljdsutredningen and released in 2012 and 2013, raise questions both about changes on equitable grounds and prosecution obligations. If these proposed changes are adopted into law, and if the Supreme Court's decision has implications beyond tax law area, Sweden can be one step closer to the crown witness system and, by extension, the criminalization of competition law.

To understand the issue of the possible criminalization of competition law in Sweden, the paper looks to the United Kingdom as well as the United States where criminalization has been carried out for certain conduct in competition law. The paper describes each country's system to give a better perspective on the issue of criminalization. By not looking at competition law's criminal sanctions as an isolated area of law, but as a part of a country's criminal justice this paper purposes to explain why criminalization does not exist within Swedish competition law, as well as answer to the question of why these solutions are not implemented in Sweden.},
  author       = {Larsson, Jonas},
  keyword      = {Konkurrensrätt,USA,Storbritannien,Sverige,Antitrust,Antitrusträtt,Näringsförbud,Billighetsskäl,Åtalsplikt,Straffrätt,Kriminalisering.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Vissa straffprocessuella frågor vid en kriminalisering av konkurrensrätten},
  year         = {2013},
}