On 2 september, the united states chamber of commerce held a seminar on the theme “antimonopoly enforcement procedures and enforcement practices of business administrations”, and 49 per cent of the 164 member enterprises surveyed by the chinese chamber of commerce felt that the recent wave of antimonopoly was directed at foreign enterprises. On the same day, the national commission for the development and reform of the zhejiang insurance industry issued an anti-monopoly ticket of $110 million, which strongly responded to the challenge。
According to the daily economic news reporter, according to reports received from the public, the national commission for the development and rehabilitation of the insurance sector of zhejiang province investigated the alleged conclusion and implementation of price monopoly agreements. The zhejiang provincial insurance industry association has organized a number of meetings and consultations among 23 provincial property insurance companies to agree on discount factors for new vehicles and agree on a uniform commercial vehicle insurance agent fee based on market shares, in violation of the relevant provisions of the antimonopoly act。
The zhejiang provincial insurance industry association was the main organizer and organizer of the price monopoly in this case, and the property insurance company was less liable for offences. Thus, the zhejiang provincial insurance industry association, which has the primary responsibility, is liable by law to a maximum fine of $500,000, and the property insurance company involved in the minor liability is liable to a fine of 1 per cent of the previous year's commercial vehicle insurance sales, totalling $1,119. 88 million。
Maximum antimonopoly penalties/
The cdrc reported that since 2009, the zhejiang provincial insurance industry association has organized meetings and consultations among 23 provincial property insurance companies to agree on discount factors for new vehicles and to agree on uniform commercial vehicle insurance agent charges based on market shares。
On 22 july 2009, zhejiang province property insurance companies were organized to agree that the rate adjustment factor for new vehicles should not be lower than 0. 95. For the nine passenger vehicles under the age of nine for which compensation was paid in the previous year, the rate adjustment factor must not be less than 0. 9 per cent for the purchase price of 500,000 to 1 million yuan and for the purchase price of 1 million yuan and above, the rate adjustment factor must not be less than 1。
On 8 may 2009, it was discussed and agreed that in 2008 commercial vehicle insurance agency charges for companies with a market share of more than 4 per cent (human security, e. G., safety, tianan, union of china, land, national life insurance) would not exceed 15 per cent, that companies with a market share of less than 4 per cent would not exceed 16 per cent and that zhejiang province motor vehicle insurance industry self-regulation convention supplementary agreement (zhejiang state secretary [2009]52) would be issued to property insurance companies; and that a fine of $20,000 to $40,000 per unit for defaulting companies would be deducted from the performance bond of the zhejiang province。
On 5 may 2010, it was agreed to adjust the fees of some companies by implementing different standards in six tranches: the first tranche is people's insurance, the taipa and peace, 7 per cent; the second tranche is life insurance and the china-china union, 8 per cent; the third tranche is sunshine, 9 per cent; the fourth tranche is ten per cent for 10 insurance companies such as the earth, tianan, the public, etc.; the fifth tranche is an xin, an xin, changan, 11 per cent for the processing fee; and the sixth tranche is tsing, china silver, saihai and min an, 12 per cent for the processing fee。
Under article 13 of the antimonopoly act, operators with a competitive relationship are prohibited from entering into monopoly agreements “fixing or changing prices”. In the commission's view, under normal circumstances, the financial insurance company competes with each other at a rate, the policyholder selects and pays a premium for a high-quality, low-priced financial insurance company, and the financial insurance company performs its liability within the agreed insurance liability. The zhejiang provincial insurance industry association has organized agreements between the companies concerned to set the level of discounts on insurance rates, effectively limiting price competition among financial insurance companies, which have violated the antimonopoly act to the detriment of the insured。
The daily economic news reporter noted that the penalty, which involved fines of up to $110 million for financial insurance companies, was the largest antimonopoly penalty in the insurance industry to date. In yesterday's cdrc announcement, nine enterprises such as the zhejiang branch, the zhejiang branch of the united states of america's le bo insurance co. Ltd., the zhejiang branch of japan's love and sorority and property insurance, the zhejiang branch of zhejiang property insurance and the zhejiang branch of purple property insurance did not participate in the conclusion and implementation of a monopoly agreement and their investigation was suspended by law。
China people's property insurance zhejiang branch, china life property insurance branch, and china safe property insurance branch, zhejiang branch, among others, have taken the initiative to report and provide important evidence of the conclusion of price monopolization agreements, and have been exempted or reduced from fines in accordance with the law。
Journalists enquired about the penalties imposed on companies and found that people were exempt from financial insurance. The specific penalties imposed by some companies were: ssp zhejiang, rmb 159. 94 million; zhejiang, rmb 20. 7 million; zhejiang, ugc, rmb 10. 29 million; zhejiang, rmb 9. 6 million; and zhejiang, rmb 9. 55 million。
Industry associations are subject to the maximum penalty
In this case, the zhejiang provincial insurance industry association was subject to the maximum penalty. The zhejiang insurance industry association organized monopolistic agreements, urged operators to implement monopolistic agreements, and acted in a manner that limited market competition, in violation of article 16 of the antimonopoly act and article 9 of the anti-prime monopolies regulations。
The daily economic news reporter noted that, according to the relevant provisions of the antimonopoly act, “industry associations violate the provisions of the act” and “a fine of less than $500,000”, which means that the maximum penalty is imposed on the insurance industry association of zhejiang province. According to zhejiang province insurance industry association, which is the main leader and organizer of the monopolistic agreement, the financial insurance companies are in a relatively passive position, with less liability and less violation, and are therefore liable to a rate of 1 per cent of the previous year's commercial car insurance sales。
According to li bin, a specialist insurance lawyer at goldman sachs in beijing, the penalty should have been imposed in a timely manner. “insurance industry associations have long failed to promote full competition among the subjects in the industry.” the earliest cases of sanctions for violations of antimonopoly laws by insurance industry associations occurred in hunan. In 2012, the association of the insurance industry of huenzhou city, hunan province, the association of the insurance industry of changde city, the association of the insurance industry of zhang dynasty city and the association of the insurance industry of youngzhou city were fined between $400,000 and $450,000 for organizing the cooperation convention for violating the relevant provisions of the antimonopoly act。
It is a matter of concern that for the first time, the official csd published in full and in full a statement of liability for administrative penalties, an attempt to make law enforcement information publicly available and subject to social scrutiny, pointing directly to external challenges to transparency in china's antimonopoly enforcement。
According to zhejiang, the organization of the zhejiang insurance industry association (zhejiang province) organizes property insurance companies that set different caps on the rates of commercial vehicle insurance procedures, which weakens companies by attracting quality agents to expand competition in the market, entrenches market shares and effectively protects inefficient enterprises, not only without contributing to the competitiveness of small and medium-sized operators, but also by reducing the incentives for industry-wide operators to upgrade services and innovative products, from which consumers, instead of benefiting from competition in the market, find it difficult to obtain quality low-price goods and services。
Cdrc: antimonopoly
Rebin told journalists that the commission's heavy fists punishing local insurance industry associations for anti-monopoly violations were a strong warning against such practices, which could promote full competition among insurance companies in the industry, and would trigger a deeper discussion of regulatory capabilities by the regulatory authorities, as well as an anti-monopoly claim by consumers as a vulnerable group. However, wang soo-chung, professor of insurance, beijing university of commerce and industry, stated that the relevant provisions of the anti-monopoly law were important for the marketable industry, which had not yet reached the level of marketability。
In august, audi, bmw, and mercedes were successively subjected to the anti-monopoly board of the ndc price. Immediately thereafter, the chamber of commerce of china issued a statement stating that some members were concerned about whether the anti-monopoly stick was “predisciplinary” to foreign-owned enterprises and was being forcefully enforced。
In response to the above-mentioned challenge, the commission for the supervision of prices and the director of the antimonopoly department, xu quinlin, reiterated that the commission's allegations regarding the equal treatment of middle and foreign enterprises were unfounded。
In fact, as early as 2011, the national commission for the reform of prices (cnredeh) first opened fire on china telecommunications and china's connection。
Show the rest of the previous page 12 next page on this page
