Development and Reform Commission Explains 6 Corporate Control Panels

The National Development and Reform Commission announced on the 4th that six companies, including South Korea’s Samsung and LG, were fined 144 million yuan for conspiracy to manipulate LCD panel prices. This is the first time China has imposed a price monopoly punishment on foreign companies. However, some analysts and netizens believe that the penalty is too light, and the fines issued by Europe and the United States are dozens of times higher than ours. Why are the penalties for price manipulation different between China and foreign countries? The reporter interviewed relevant departments and experts in this regard.

Six companies implement price monopoly
According to the person in charge of the National Development and Reform Commission, from 2001 to 2006, six LCD panel makers, including South Korea’s Samsung, held 53 “crystal conferences” in Taiwan and South Korea, exchanging LCD panel market information for the global market, and negotiating LCD panels. price.

"When selling liquid crystal panels in mainland China, the companies involved managed the LCD panel market prices based on the prices negotiated at the crystal conferences or exchanged relevant information," said the person in charge.

According to the data provided by the National Development and Reform Commission, panel costs accounted for about 80% of color TV production costs from 2001 to 2006. In recent years, this proportion has declined, but it is also about 70%. The price monopolistic behavior of the companies involved impaired the legitimate rights and interests of domestic color TV companies and consumers.

China's punishment is much lighter than Europe and the United States

In addition to fines, the Development and Reform Commission also ordered the companies involved to refund the domestic color TV companies overpayments of 172 million yuan and confiscate 36.57 million yuan of illegal income. Some netizens believe that the penalty is too low to “not to force” and “not to have any vigilance”.

It is understood that six companies have been ordered to return illegal income, and paid fines include: Samsung 1.01 billion yuan, LG 118 million yuan, Chimei 94.41 million yuan, AUO 21,890,000 yuan, Chunghwa Picture Tubes 16.2 million yuan, Hao Yu Caijing 240000 yuan. Taiwan’s Friend was removed from the penalties for being the first to confess.

Recently, the United States has imposed a total fine of US$1.215 billion on six related companies. It has also investigated the criminal responsibility of nine senior executives of three companies; the European Union imposed a total fine of 648 million euros on the companies involved; South Korea’s fine was 1940. 100 million won.

Some experts believe that due to various reasons, the reason why a small number of large companies dare to know how to break the law, and the low cost of illegal activities is one of the important reasons. Although tens of millions of dollars are not small figures, it is indeed negligible for multinational corporations with profits of several billion yuan. However, the illegal activities of these enterprises can not underestimate the interests of panel companies in China, BOE and other panel companies and Chinese consumers.

BOE is the leading LCD panel manufacturer in China. Due to the illegal behavior of overseas companies, the high-tech investment of billions and even billions of dollars has been depleted for many years.

Applicable law Different companies have voluntary behavior
The person in charge of the Development and Reform Commission stated that the six companies involved in the negotiation of the liquid crystal panel sales price for the global market are typical price monopoly behaviors. Many countries and regions have severely punished this case. Since the United States and the European Union imposed a punishment on the case based on the country’s anti-monopoly law, the base of the fine was the sales of the companies involved and the amount of fines was relatively large.

The person in charge said that China's price monopoly on this case is based on the "Price Law," which imposes penalties, and the penalty base is the illegal income of these enterprises. In addition, these panel companies have surrendered themselves to the plot, and therefore gave different degrees of lighter penalties, the amount of fines is relatively lighter. "If the punishment is based on the "Anti-Monopoly Law" of China, the fine base will also be the sales of these companies, and the amount of fines will certainly be much greater."

Regarding why the "anti-monopoly law" is not used, the Development and Reform Commission stated that "the price violations in this case occurred from 2001 to 2006, because at that time China's "anti-monopoly law" had not been promulgated and implemented, according to the law, it was not retroactive, and it was old and new. From the old principle of "consistency," we used the "Price Law" to impose a qualitative penalty on the case."