Let me help you translate the BOTTOM LINE of this article... The ONE sentence that I saw in there, that I felt needed explaining to put things into perspective... The relevant sentence reads: "All fines were paid into the National Revenue Fund and the money was used in terms of the needs set out by the fiscal framework." Translation: We took the money and we will spend it as we see fit... Now - onto the article... I see many names are mentioned: Pioneer Foods, Tiger Brands, Foodcorp, Telkom, Sasol, South African Airways. Of the FIFTEEN Construction Companies (which were actually supposed to be mentioned int eh article, probably) only Group 5, Construction ID and Power Construction. For NOT settling and PAYING... Is the media biased or used as a tool to "name and shame" those who DARE not "just admit and pay!?!?!?" Come on eNCA - you can do better than that! Anyway - read for yourself: eNCA - Construction Cartel Nailed for R 1.46 bn Johannesburg - The fine of R1.46bn Competition Competition fine imposed on 15 construction companies is the largest fine imposed since the inception of the Competition Act in 1999. It is much bigger than the fines levied on the bread producers that were found guilty of cartel activity in 2007, where Pioneer Foods alone received a combined administrative penalty of almost R700m for anticompetitive behaviour. Fines in South Africa for cartel conduct have been increasing as parties are expected to be aware of their obligations under competition law and as the competition authorities grow in confidence. Director at law firm Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Justin Balkin said the bread cartel case provided some lessons for those who stand firm and refuse to settle. “One need only contrast the fates of those who settled with those who fought to the end in that case to see that penalties increase as matters are contested. It is hard to anticipate what defences may be raised by those who have not settled.” In the bread cartel case, Pioneer Foods was the only company that decided not to settle with the commission, and paid a high price. Premier Foods received corporate leniency when it disclosed the existence of the cartel, and Tiger Brands and Foodcorp eventually settled. Pioneer received an administrative penalty of R196m for its participation in the bread cartel. It then opted to co-operate with the commission and negotiated settlements in other cases against it which included pricefixing and market allocation in maize and wheat products. It paid an administrative penalty of R500m, of which R180m was used to set up the Agro-processing Competitive Fund, administered by the National Development Corporation. In its settlement with the commission, Telkom had to commit to a reduction of prices of wholesale infrastructure products such as ADSL leased lines and undersea cable lines that should save consumers R875m. All fines were paid into the National Revenue Fund and the money was used in terms of the needs set out by the fiscal framework. Deputy competition commissioner Trudi Makhaya said the national fiscal framework goes beyond competition issues, with several agencies collecting fines for contraventions of the country’s laws. It would make it extremely difficult in terms of public finance management if each of these agencies started acting on its own, outside an overarching fiscal framework. Sasol was fined R250m in 2009 and Telkom R450m earlier in 2013. South African Airways has been fined close to R55m and has been subjected to civil claims. The commission instigated a fast-track settlement process for the construction industry and only three companies have not settled: Group Five, for four projects in which it was implicated by other firms; Construction ID, for one rigged project and another in which it was implicated by other firms; and Power Construction for one rigged project that it has declared. Group Five, which received corporate leniency for all 25 rigged projects it declared, said it has not reached a settlement with the commission on the four projects due to “factual and evidentiary discrepancies” between the commission and itself. It said it was not obliged to accede to a final settlement until matters have been fully investigated.
Posted on: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:50:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015