AbstractsLaw & Legal Studies

Drawing on a comparative approach this study discusses the criminalization of the so-called hard-core cartels and suggests that despite possible pitfalls it continues to be a worthy endeavor. It seems that the integrity of the criminal justice system warrants the introduction of a criminalized anti-cartel regime, a project that should be on the agenda for all modern economies, including Finland and Sweden. However, one should not rashly proceed with such a vast project without carefully considering all the components that go into a successful regime lest the project become an asset turned into a liability. Crucially a failure regarding one or few components may undermine the whole project, as the UK experience may confirm. In the gravest cases criminal law alone could communicate adequately the blameworthiness of a given conduct: cartels impair one of the core pillars of our society, the market economy on which individuals depend in an attempt to ensure their own welfare. Indeed the bold disobedience to the whole system appears to be at the core of what is delinquent about cartels. Overcriminalization critique concerning a possible criminalization of cartel conduct seems to ignore the moral educative function of criminal law. The public may come to denounce behavior that was previously perceived to be neutral in moral terms one may think of the environmental offences for instance. Certainly public opinion could be shaped by experts views in complex fields of law. A coherent EU criminal policy and a national one for that matter, with regard to cartels should promote uniformity: the credibility of the criminal justice system is supported by criminally banning violations of a similar penal value. The justification for an exclusively administrative mode of anti-cartel enforcement appears vague. It seems that administrative sanctions could be properly adopted only against minor offences, whereas cartels as an egregious violation of competition law do not seem to fall within that category. Arguably, cartel conduct warrants the ultimate condemnation provided only by criminal law. Other measures would not produce the stigmatizing label on a par with criminal measures. Several EU member states have introduced criminal cartel offences whereas similar rules are absent at the EU level. In that regard it may be noted that it would hardly make for a coherent EU criminal policy if larger cross-border cartels did not prompt criminal liability whereas at the national level cartels were caught by criminal prohibition. Moreover, it may be argued that the UK problems with the cartel offence stem partly from the lack of harmonization in the EU, which may have also contributed to the misguided policy of relying exclusively on administrative sanctions in Finland where individual liability is completely absent. While the optimal deterrence theory cannot alone be relied upon to back a cartel criminalization project, it may remain a point of continued interest in the cartel criminalization debate due to its theoretical appeal.…