Cracking the Qualcomm anti-monopoly case

There was a great deal of media attention in 2011 when the NDRC launched anti-trust investigations against China Telecom and China Unicom, both State-owned companies. How did you feel about this?

We had to investigate because we received reports with detailed information. When the anti-monopoly law came in (2008), companies did not take it seriously. Investigating SOEs was a challenging job. But in the end, the telecommunication carriers finally agreed to revamp their business operations.

You once said punishment is not the goal. So, what is the object of these investigations?

It is simply to create a level playing field for businesses to operate on. We investigated six liquid crystal display panel manufacturers, including Samsung (in January 2013). It was the first time an overseas company was punished. (The six companies, including Samsung, were fined $57.5 million for price-fixing). The case resulted in opening up the market to other companies (that made LCD screens) and helped Chinese consumers (as prices came down on those products).

Maybe you can tell us how the bureau gathers evidence?

We have two departments. Each one has four investigators and they have quite a heavy caseload. We talk to all the relevant parties in gathering information.

The NDRC's anti-monopoly division has expanded over the years. How big is it now?

In December 2009 when I joined the bureau, there were only two people handling anti-trust cases. By July 2011, the price supervision bureau was renamed the bureau of price supervision and anti-monopoly. The number of staff also increased to 46.

Does the NDRC work with overseas organizations?

We work very closely with our counterparts in the EU. We have sent three teams of investigators to work with them. We also have annual minister-level discussions with the US law enforcement agencies.