
primer
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/ikq167bdy5z8/public_html/propertyresourceholdingsgroup.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114The Decree replaced Chapter 29, Title 2, Part 2, Book 2 of Decree 1074 of 2015 (also known as the Sole Regulatory Decree for the Commerce Sector), and amended the regulation applicable to the CBP. The modifications are intended to improve the detection and investigation of anticompetitive practices, by incentivizing market agents that participate in anticompetitive conduct to enter into the CBP and obtain a reduction or even full exoneration of the fine to be imposed.
The main changes arising from the Decree are the following:
Timing | First Applicant | Second Applicant | Third Applicant |
Up to the day before the SIC issues the decision formally opening the investigation | Full exoneration | Between 30% and 50% of the fine | Up to 25% of the fine |
As of the day that the decision opening the investigation is issued | Up to 30% of the fine | Up to 20% of the fine | Up to 15% of the fine |
Except for the event of full exoneration, the reduction percentage will depend on the usefulness of the information and the evidence provided by the applicant to the administrative investigation, as well as the stage of the procedure in which it is provided.
This additional benefit will be granted only once per investigation, and will also apply to the facilitator[3] who reports the conduct.
We are available to respond to any specific questions you have about how these developments may affect your business.
[1] Previously, the local regulation established Presumption: “For purposes of granting benefits for collaboration, it will be presumed that the applicant is not the Instigator or promoter of the anticompetitive agreement. Whoever affirms that another is instigator or promotor of the anticompetitive agreement bears the burden to prove it.”
[2] Instigator or promotor is defined as “the person who through coercion or serious threat induces another or others to enter into or be part of an anticompetitive conduct.”
[3] Local regulation defines facilitator as “any individual that collaborates, authorizes, promotes, pushes, executes or tolerates anticompetitive conduct”.