April 17, 2026
Japan Fair Trade Commission
The Japan Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “JFTC”), following a compulsory investigation into a price-fixing cartel involving diesel fuel retailers, found that there were grounds to believe that a criminal violation of the Antimonopoly Act (hereinafter referred to as the “AMA”) had been committed. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 74(1) of the AMA, the JFTC today filed a criminal accusation with the Prosecutor General against Higashi Nihon Usami Co., Ltd. and four other companies.
1. Accused Companies
| Corporate Names | Addresses and Representatives |
| Higashi Nihon Usami Co., Ltd. |
2-22-2 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo Tomoyuki TAKAHASHI, Representative Director |
| ENEOS WING Corporation |
3-6-1 Sakae, Naka-ku, Nagoya, Aichi Yoshiharu TSURU, Representative Director |
| ENEX FLEET CO., LTD. |
2-1-3 Nishimiyahara, Yodogawa-ku, Osaka Jun AOYAGI, Representative Director |
| Kitaseki Co., Ltd. |
3-1-6 Ainohara, Iwanuma, Miyagi Takeo OKAWA, Representative Director |
| Kyoei Sekiyu Co., Ltd. |
5-56-12 Higashikasai, Edogawa-ku, Tokyo Yoshiaki NISHINO, Representative Director |
2. Grounds for the Criminal Accusation
The Japan Fair Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “JFTC”), following a compulsory investigation into a price-fixing cartel involving diesel fuel retailers, found that there were grounds to believe that a criminal violation of the Antimonopoly Act (hereinafter referred to as the “AMA”) had been committed. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 74(1) of the AMA, the JFTC today filed a criminal accusation with the Prosecutor General against Higashi Nihon Usami Co., Ltd. and four other companies.
In connection with the business of the Accused Companies and the Other Companies of selling diesel fuel by such means as issuing fuel cards, to transportation companies and other customers whose points of contact for negotiations were located in Tokyo (hereinafter referred to as the “Products at Issue”), the employees concerned agreed as follows:
(1) At a meeting held at a restaurant in Tokyo on or around October 24, 2024, they agreed, with regard to the selling price of the Products at Issue for that month, to aim for an increase of 2 yen per liter from the previous month’s selling price, including the 1-yen-per-liter increase, effective October 1, in the fee payable to petroleum wholesalers, and to raise the selling price for that month by passing on, at a minimum, the increase in the purchase price of the Products at Issue for that month and the increase in the aforementioned fee.
(2) At a meeting held at a restaurant in Tokyo on or around November 20, 2024, they agreed, with regard to the selling price of the Products at Issue for that month, to aim to maintain the previous month’s selling price, and to limit any reduction in the selling price for that month, at a minimum, to no more than the decrease in the purchase price for that month.
(3) At a meeting held at a restaurant in Tokyo on or around December 20, 2024, they agreed, with regard to the selling price of the Products at Issue for that month, to aim for an increase of 2.5 yen per liter from the previous month’s selling price, and to raise the selling price for that month by passing on, at a minimum, the increase in the purchase price of the Products at Issue for that month.
As a result, the Accused Companies and the Other Companies substantially restrained competition in the field of trade for the sale of the Products at Issue, contrary to the public interest, by acting jointly to mutually restrict their business activities.
3. Applicable Provisions
Violation of the Antimonopoly Act
Article 89(1)(i), Article 3 and Article 95(1)(i) of the AMA, and Article 60 of the Penal Code
