On The Perfection Of The System Of Forgiveness In China 's Anti - Monopoly Law

U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Bureau formulated the first company leniency program in 1978, so that leniency program has born. Over the past thirty years, leniency program has had a positive impact on catch cartels in time, saving law enforcement costs, protecting the legitimate interests of other market participants and the promotion of full competition in the market. It also has achieved remarkable results in practice, prompting other countries or region to follow. The system is becoming an effective means for national antitrust enforcement agencies to combat cartels, playing an increasingly important role.China also established leniency program in the Anti-monopoly Law in 2007, but its provisions was too broad-brush to operate, and the implementation effect is not good. The paper uses logical analysis and other methods to make a painstaking investigation for the problems on the discussion of the basic theory existing in the system. And it discusses the theme that how to improve the system, so that we can have theoretical preparation for the enforcement of the system under the anti-monopoly law.Besides the introduction and conclusion, this paper divides into four chapters, each chapter of the main contents are as follows:The first chapter introduces the concept of the system, characteristics and functions. Firstly, we give the definition of the system and summarize the characteristics briefly to allow us have a clear understanding of the meaning. Secondly, we talk about the basic functions of system to highlight its value.The second chapter discusses the theoretical foundations and effective system of protection. The theoretical foundations, we discuss rationality of the system and its operation mechanism from the jurisprudence and law and economics perspective to provide strong theoretical support. The effective protection, we sum up the necessary condition that the system can play effectively from entity, procedure and deterrence.The third chapter focuses on the provisions of the system and its problems. Firstly, we introduce the legislative situation of the system from the overall clarity, and summarize its main content. Secondly, we focally discuss the problems of the system, namely:the system itself is too principled, and deterrence is not enough to safeguard the effectiveness of the system, and lacking of protective measures for applicants. The discussion of the problems has laid a solid foundation for the writing of the part of improvement.Chapter IV discusses countermeasures to improve the system with wide coverage, and it is the core part of this article. This part puts forward specific countermeasures to improve our system on the above discussion. In the substantive provisions, the paper gives five proposes of establishing automatic rule, setting up a different exemption punishment rule scientific, the clear provisions of the applicant, stipulating applicant conduct element amply and fixing set the time of application. In the procedural provisions, with the entire applicable process, the paper divides the implementation of the system into anonymous counseling before applying, the proposal of applications, accepting and reviewing of the applications, decision to make, and so on. And it separately describes the contents of procedural provisions. In addition, to ensure the effective implementation of the system, this paper also proposes three supporting measures to adapt to the system, namely:perfecting the responsibility hierarchy of the system, establishing a special department to accept the applications, enhancing application’s protection. The paper puts forward specific countermeasures to improve our leniency program to make it completion and refine, so that the system can become a workable and practical rule.