TY - JOUR
T1 - Due Process in Antitrust Enforcement
T2 - Normative and Comparative Perspectives
AU - Yoo, Christopher S.
AU - Fetzer, Thomas
AU - Jiang, Shan
AU - Huang, Yong
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 University of Southern California. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Due process in antitrust enforcement has significant implications for better professional and accurate enforcement decisions. Not only can due process spur economic growth, raise government credibility, and limit the abuse of powers according to law; it can also promote competitive reforms in monopolized sectors and curb corruption. Jurisdictions learn from the best practices in the investigation process, decision-making process, and the announcement and judicial review of antitrust enforcement decisions. By comparing the enforcement policies of China, the European Union, and the United States, this Article calls for better disclosure of evidence, participation of legal counsel, and protection of the procedural and substantive rights of the respondent in the investigation process. In conducting evidence review and arriving at punitive decisions, the enforcement agency should establish a separation between investigatory and adjudicatory functions. Finally, the issued punishment decision should contain more comprehensive information and be subject to judicial review.
AB - Due process in antitrust enforcement has significant implications for better professional and accurate enforcement decisions. Not only can due process spur economic growth, raise government credibility, and limit the abuse of powers according to law; it can also promote competitive reforms in monopolized sectors and curb corruption. Jurisdictions learn from the best practices in the investigation process, decision-making process, and the announcement and judicial review of antitrust enforcement decisions. By comparing the enforcement policies of China, the European Union, and the United States, this Article calls for better disclosure of evidence, participation of legal counsel, and protection of the procedural and substantive rights of the respondent in the investigation process. In conducting evidence review and arriving at punitive decisions, the enforcement agency should establish a separation between investigatory and adjudicatory functions. Finally, the issued punishment decision should contain more comprehensive information and be subject to judicial review.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129574018&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Review Article
AN - SCOPUS:85129574018
SN - 0038-3910
VL - 94
SP - 843
EP - 926
JO - Southern California Law Review
JF - Southern California Law Review
IS - 4
ER -