A PYMNTS Company

Brazil’s Antitrust Authority Dismisses Two Cartel Investigations Due to Insufficient Evidence

By  |  July 11, 2024
Nearly 16 Years of the Leniency Program in Brazil: Breakthroughs and Challenges in Cartel Prosecution

The Tribunal at Brazil’s Antitrust Authority (CADE) has dismissed two administrative proceedings investigating cartel activities since the beginning of 2024. These cases involved the water meter market and a group of construction companies participating in a bidding process. Both were dismissed due to insufficient evidence against some of the defendants.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    Subscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The rulings highlight the importance of carefully analyzing indirect and unilateral evidence in cartel investigations, even in cases originating from Leniency Agreements or Settlement Agreements (TCC). Key points from the rulings include:

    We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

    Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

    Add as Preferred Source
    1. Leniency Agreements and TCCs: These do not automatically lead to convictions of other investigated parties. Corroboration and sufficient evidence are required to eliminate reasonable doubt about the defendants’ alleged involvement.
    2. Unilateral Evidence: The Tribunal confirmed that an evidentiary set consisting solely of unilateral evidence, involving only one participant in the alleged collusion, is insufficient for establishing a conviction.
    3. Indirect Evidence: Evidence indicating signs of collusion but not conclusively proving it is viewed as weak, especially when such evidence is sparse or ambiguous.
    4. Secretive Documents: Unilaterally produced documents or tables of unknown authorship are not enough to prove misconduct between multiple parties.
    5. Alternative Narratives: Proving a legitimate business relationship between defendants can provide an alternative narrative to collusion, depending on the specifics and evidence of the case.

    These judgments underscore the stringent standard of proof CADE applies to cartel investigations, reflecting the new lineup at CADE’s Tribunal.

    Source: Mattos Fiho