August 1/2005
Japan Fair Trade Commission
On June 29, 2005, the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) found a criminal violation of the Antimonopoly Act and filed an accusation with the Public Prosecutor General against 3 companies mentioned initem 1(1)a.The JFTC considered that 3 companies and 5 individuals mentioned in item 1(1)b and 1(1)c were involved in criminal violations of the Antimonopoly Act, and the individual mentioned in item 1(2) abetted to violate the Antimonopoly Act, and today filed an accusation additionally with the Public Prosecutor General against them in accordance with Section 73 (1) of the Antimonopoly Act.
1. Accused individuals and companies
(1) Accused individuals and companies violating the Antimonopoly Act
a. 3 companies accused in June 29, 2005
Yokogawa Bridge Corp. (Tokyo)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Tokyo)
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy industries Co., Ltd. (Tokyo)
b. 3 companies accused additionally
Kawada Industries, Inc. (Toyama)
JFE Engineering Corporation (Tokyo)
Miyaji Iron Works co., Ltd. (Tokyo)
c. 5 individuals accused
The former Executive Director of the Japan Highway Public Corporation,who was reemployed by Yokogawa Bridge Corp.
The 4 individuals of the Yokogawa Bridge Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy industries Co., Ltd.,Kawada Industries, Inc., who were engaged in bidding for the said projects ordered by theJapan Highway Public Corporation
(2)The individual who abetted to violate the Antimonopoly Act
The Vice President of the Japan Highway Public Corporation
2. Ground of the accusation
(1) Fact
a. The 6 companies mentioned in item 1(1)a and item 1(1)b, together with 43 companies of steel bridge construction in FY 2003 and with 41 companies in FY 2004, agreed that they would decide in advance the winner of a tender for steel bridge construction projects ordered for competitive bids by the Japan HighwayPublic Corporation and would bid at a price convenient for the winner decided among the bidders to win. The 6 companies and above 43 companies or 41 companies substantially restricted competition contrary to the public interest, in the field of bridge construction mentioned above, by mutually restricting and coordinating their business activities, deciding the winner according to the agreement.
And the 5 individuals mentioned in item 1(1)c, substantially restricted competition in the field of bridge construction mentioned above, with individuals of other companies of steel bridge construction.
The individual mentioned in item 1(2),meetingrequests from the former Executive Director of the Japan Highway Public Corporation mentioned in item 1 (1) c, commanded the corporation to partition its constructive work into several orders which should be one blanket order and to carry it out, and abet the crime mentioned above..
b. The individual mentioned in item 1(2),meetingrequests from the former Executive Director of the Japan Highway Public Corporation mentioned in item 1 (1) c, commanded the corporation to partition its constructive work into several orders which should be one blanket order and to carry it out, and abet the crime mentioned above..
(2) Relating Laws
a. As to item 2(1)a, Section 89(1)(1),Section 95(1)(1),Section 3 of the Antimonopoly Act, and Section 60 of criminal Code.
b. As to in item 2(1)b, Section 89(1)(1),Section 95(1)(1),Section 3 of the Antimonopoly Act, and Section 62(1) of criminal Code.
*Every announcement is tentative translation. Please refer to the original text written in Japanese.
