compliance

Subscribe to compliance via RSS

By Susan Ning, Pulcheria Chung, Kailun Ji and Hazel Yin

To increase clarity and transparency on the merger remedy regime under the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML“), China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM“) published the draft Rules Regarding Imposition of Restrictive Conditions on Concentrations of Undertakings (the “Draft Rules“) on 27 March 2013 for public comments. 

Under the AML, MOFCOM may attach restrictive conditions to reduce the negative impact a concentration of business operators will bring on competition in the relevant market.  On 5 July 2010, MOFCOM published the Provisional Rules on Divestiture of Assets or Business to Implement Concentrations of Undertakings (the “Divestiture Rules“) which was the first set of rules specifically dealing with divestiture remedies.  The Draft Rules are intended to cover not only divestiture, but also conduct remedies and will replace the Divestiture Rules once adopted.
Continue Reading Path towards A More Streamlined Merger Control System – MOFCOM Publishes Draft Rules on Merger Remedies

By King & Wood Mallesons’ Compliance Group

China’s first national standard on personal information protection, namely the Guide of Personal Information Protection on Information Security Technology, Public and Commercial Information Service System (the “Guide”) became effect on February 1, 2013. Only about one month earlier, the Decision on Strengthening Online Information Protection (the “Decision”) was adopted by Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on December 28, 2012 and became effective on the same day. Both of the moves show China has taken the significant first step on enhancing personal information protection.
Continue Reading China Enhances Personal Information Protection

作者：金杜律师事务所法律合规组

中国首个个人信息保护国家标准——《信息安全技术、公共及商用服务信息系统个人信息保护指南》（“《指南》”）于2013年2月1日起实施。而就在一个多月前，全国人大常委会于2012年12月28日审议通过了《关于加强网络信息保护的决定》（“《决定》”）， 并自公布之日起生效。以上两个举措表明了中国已经在加强个人信息保护方面迈出了重要的第一步。
Continue Reading 中国加强对个人信息的保护

By Susan Ning, Huang Jing and Hazel Yin

On April 3, 2013, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) published the draft Interim Rules regarding the Standards of Simple Cases of Concentrations of Operators (Draft Standards), to solicit comments from the public.  The Draft Standards set out the factors that MOFCOM would consider when identifying if a concentration of operators would be categorized as a simple case. 

The Draft Standards include the following major provisions:
Continue Reading MOFCOM On the Track to Adopt a Simplified Merger Review Mechanism by Publishing Standards of Simple Merger Cases

By Sidney Qin and Yang Xiaoli  King & Wood Mallesons’ Compliance Group

Overview: Promoting products or services by advertising and other forms of propaganda (“Advertising Behavior”) has always being crucial for emerging retail brands to build their brand image, increase sales and secure market share. It is not rare for authorities in China to challenge retailers for improper Advertising Behavior, but how many of the retail market players have bothered to watch their steps in the various ways of conducting advertisements and propaganda in China?
Continue Reading Retailers Beware: Be Careful with How You Advertise Your Products in China

By King & Wood Mallesons’ Compliance Group

On December 26, 2012, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly released the “Interpretation on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of the Criminal Cases of Offering Bribes“(the “Interpretation”). This Interpretation comes into effect as of January 1, 2013. The Interpretation specifies how the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law pertaining to the offering of bribes are to be applied.

The crime of offering bribes refers to the crime of offering money or property in kind to a state functionary with the intent to acquire illegal enrichment or interest. According to relevant provisions in the Criminal Law, state functionaries are persons who perform public service in state bodies, state-owned companies or, enterprises, institutions or people’s organizations. Additionally, persons who are assigned by state bodies, state-owned companies, enterprises or institutions to non-state-owned companies, enterprises or institutions to perform public service, and other persons who perform public service according to the law, shall all be regarded as state functionaries.
Continue Reading Briefing Notes: “Interpretation on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of the Criminal Cases of Offering Bribes”

作者：金杜律师事务所法律合规组

2012年12月26日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院发布了《关于办理行贿刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》（“《解释》”）。该《解释》自2013年1月1日起实施，对《刑法》行贿罪相关条款的具体适用做出了明确地说明。

 行贿罪是指为谋取不正当利益，给予国家工作人员以财物的犯罪。而根据《刑法》相关规定，国家工作人员指在国家机关中从事公务的人员。国有公司、企业、事业单位、人民团体从事公务的人员和国家机关、国有公司、企事业单位委派到非国有公司、企业、事业单位、社会群体从事公务的人员，以及其他依照法律从事公务的人员，以国家工作人员论。
Continue Reading 《关于办理行贿刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》概要

By Susan Ning, Li Rui and Hazel Yin

On January 5th, 2013, the Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court (the “Court”) ruled in favor of a consumer who sued Shanxi Broadcast & TV Network Intermediary (Group) Co., Ltd. (“Network”), the local cable service provider, for tie-in and imposing unreasonable sales conditions by tying basic cable services with digital channel services. The Court found that the Network’s practice of selling basic cable services on the condition that the subscribers also purchase digital channel services violated Article 17(5) of the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML”) regarding tie-in sales and imposition of unreasonable trade conditions. In reaching this decision, the court reasoned that because the Network is a lawful monopoly in the local market for cable TV, its conditioning of the sale of basic cable service on the customer’s subscription for digital channels infringes upon the customer’s freedom of choice and diminishes consumer welfare.
Continue Reading Chinese Consumer Wins Abuse of Dominance Civil Action against Tie-in Sales in Program Bundling

By Susan Ning, Kate Peng, Pulcheria Chung and Karen Ji

China’s Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) issued its Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct (“SPC rules”) on May 3, 2012, effective on June 1, 2012.  Article 7 of the SPC rules differentiates between horizontal and vertical monopolistic agreements with regard to the plaintiff’s burden of proof on the element of anti-competitive effect.  Horizontal monopolistic agreements falling within Article 13 of the AM are presumed to have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, unless the defendants can demonstrate otherwise.  For vertical monopolistic agreements under Article 14 of the AML, no such presumption will be made. 

By implication, the above differentiation would mean that the plaintiff in a vertical monopolistic claim must prove (1) the monopolistic agreement falls within Article 14 of the AML; (2) the agreement has anti-competitive effects; (3) it suffered damages because of the monopolistic conduct.  Whereas the plaintiff in a horizontal monopolistic claim only needs to prove item (1) and (3) abovementioned, and the defendant has the rebuttal burden to prove that the agreement would not eliminate or restrict competition.
Continue Reading Burden of Proof in Monopolistic Agreement Claims

作者：宁宣凤、刘佳、尹冉冉

2013年2月22日，贵州省物价局公布处罚决定，就中国知名的高端白酒国有企业贵州茅台的固定转售价格行为，对其处以2.47亿元人民币的罚款。同一天，四川省发展和改革委员会（“四川省发改委”）也公布处罚决定，基于相同的理由，对另一家中国知名的高端白酒国有生产企业五粮液公司，处以2.02亿元人民币的罚款。贵州省物价局和四川省发改委均为国家发展和改革委员会（“发改委”）的地方执法机构，根据《反垄断法》的授权，负责与价格相关的（包括固定转售价格行为在内）垄断协议执法工作。

此两起处罚决定一经公布，即刻引起巨大轰动。这是中国反垄断执法机构首次根据《反垄断法》对固定转售价格行为予以处罚。此外，两笔罚款的总金额高达4.49亿元人民币，也是迄今为止中国反垄断执法史上金额最高的罚款。
Continue Reading 第一张纵向垄断协议罚单：贵州茅台和五粮液固定转售价格案简析