Watershed in criminal cartel prosecution

In the latest development in the prosecution of the criminal cartel offence under section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002, a six-month suspended sentence has been handed down to an individual after he pleaded guilty to dishonestly agreeing to fix the prices of galvanised steel water tanks.  Peter Snee originally pleaded guilty to the charges back in June 2014. 

There are no sentencing guidelines applicable to a case of this type, although Judge Andrew Goymer said that he considered the gravity, nature, length and degree of Snee’s culpability in implementing and enforcing the cartel.  He considered that two years would be the appropriate sentence, but reduced this by three quarters on account of Snee’s cooperation and guilty plea.  An order of 120 hours community service was also imposed.  The Judge declined to impose a company director disqualification order.

Snee’s counsel argued that the defendant was effectively ‘carrying the can’ and that he had been through ‘three years of sheer hell’.  It was also argued that he acted out of concern for job security and the welfare of other company employees.

The case was the first criminal cartel offence prosecution brought by the CMA.  However, prosecutions against two other individuals - Clive Dean and Nicholas Stringer - who pleaded not guilty ended in acquittals in June this year.

The circumstances of this case are unlikely to be repeated.  Under the (pre 1 April 2014) definition of the cartel offence an individual is guilty of an offence if he dishonestly agrees with one or more persons to make or implement, or cause to be made or implemented, arrangements whereby at least two undertakings will engage in one or more prohibited cartel activity.  In respect of the post 1 April 2014 cartel offence the requirement that an individual must be acting “dishonestly” for these purposes is removed.  This change in the law is expected to make it easier to secure prosecutions.  Nevertheless, the case provides an important insight into sentencing as the potential sanctions are identical. The outcome reflects the reality that a guilty plea and cooperation can avoid prison time.  It seems that a six-month suspended sentence was the minimum that the judge could have imposed in the case.