2.6 Is in-house legal advice protected by privileges? In the midst of controversy in the mid-2000s, concerns about retaliation and potential negative repercussions on U.S. companies led to the U.S. Congress` attempt to punish OPEC as a blocked illegal cartel. Despite the fact that OPEC is considered a cartel by most, OPEC members have claimed that it is not a cartel at all, but an international organization with a legal, permanent and necessary mission. History has shown that cartels that have repercussions in the United States are not just a matter of domestic activity. While the number and importance of successful international cartel prosecutions by the Agreements Division has increased significantly since the early 1990s, these cases follow a long history of prosecuting international agreements. The first major case with an international dimension was U.S. v. American Tobacco, which was brought in 1907. In this case, the Department of Justice brought charges against 94 American companies and individuals, as well as two British companies, and challenged the creation of a private tobacco monopoly in the United States. Part of the illegal behavior was an agreement between British tobacco companies and American companies to stay away from each other`s domestic markets and divide the rest of the world.
Among those affected were American, British and other consumers. The British companies argued that their conduct did not fall under the Sherman Act, but the US Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the conduct of the defendants, both American and British, was unlawful. (9) 1.1 What is the legal basis and general nature of the prohibition of cartels, for example: is it civil and/or criminal? The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is the largest cartel in the world. It is a group of 14 oil-producing countries whose task is to coordinate and unify the oil policies of their member countries and to ensure the stabilization of oil markets. OPEC`s activities are legal because U.S. trade laws protect them. Companies can pay legal fees incurred by current and former employees during antitrust investigations. In general, companies are prohibited from paying fines imposed on their employees, but according to state laws that prohibit compensation for intentional violations of criminal law. Most cases are settled, and some are settled for large amounts. Among the few who go to court, jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs are common, although they are sometimes overturned for legal reasons.
The extraterritorial scope of the Department of Justice to prosecute cartels in all jurisdictions is evident in the increase in indictments, indictments, and prosecutions against international component suppliers who allegedly cartel parts sold outside the United States, with only the final product sold in the United States. The Department of Justice argued that although the cartels originated outside the borders of the United States, their impact – that the highly inflated prices of components affected the final price of the product – directly harmed American consumers. These include cartels involving auto parts, foreign exchange markets, liquid crystal displays, electrolytic capacitors, and other products. The Department of Justice has also imposed significant fines on companies participating in these international cartels. As of January 2021, of the 156 companies that had paid fines of $10 million or more, 129 were foreign companies. The Department of Justice cooperates with foreign authorities whenever appropriate to investigate cartels. To this end, the MINISTRY concludes mutual legal assistance (“MAT”) treaties with the respective executors of wills in other countries, which allow the various authorities, among other things, to exchange information and coordinate searches at dawn. For example, the Department of Justice and foreign authorities may schedule dawn searches and searches to coincide in multiple jurisdictions to minimize the risk of destruction of evidence. DoJ has programs that allow individuals to contact the government on an individual basis to report antitrust violations to the ministry. Under the current DOJ directive, a whistleblower may be eligible for leniency or immunity if they report antitrust activities that the government was not aware of and fully cooperate with the DOJ. The employee cannot have created or directed the conspiracy in question, and will not enjoy immunity if he or she has forced others to participate in the illegal activity.
