The Hong Kong Bar Association has put forward a policy paper recommending that bid-rigging be treated not only as a civil matter but also as one subject to criminal prosecution. The proposal advocates introducing a double-track approach into the existing Competition Ordinance, arguing that parallel civil and criminal routes would raise the stakes for offenders and make regulatory action more effective. In the association’s view, this move offers a relatively swift amendment to the law that could bolster deterrence in sectors vulnerable to collusion.
Under the current framework, the regime established in 2015 handles serious anti-competitive behaviour through civil penalties, typically financial fines imposed on individuals and firms. The Bar Association notes that the present system — the civil regime under the ordinance — can limit both the perceived severity of sanctions and the incentives for insiders to come forward. The new recommendation contends that adding criminal offences to the statute would alter enforcement dynamics and increase the likelihood that misconduct is exposed.
What the recommendation proposes
The core of the submission is a shift from a solely civil enforcement model toward a dual-path system. By instituting a double-track mechanism, authorities would have discretion to pursue either civil remedies or criminal charges where evidence supports it. Proponents describe the double-track approach as a mechanism to complement existing tools rather than replace them, enabling prosecutors and regulators to apply the most suitable response depending on the gravity and character of the conduct.
Defining the tracks and thresholds
Although the Bar Association’s paper does not dictate precise sentencing outcomes, it emphasizes the need for clear thresholds that distinguish civil breaches from criminally culpable conduct. The association argues that such thresholds should be transparent to ensure fair notice to businesses while providing investigators with the authority to escalate cases when deliberate and serious collusion is detected. In their framing, the change targets conduct like bid allocation and deliberate market division, commonly grouped under the label bid-rigging.
Why the proposal has emerged now
The recommendation follows public concern arising in the wake of the city’s deadliest fire in decades, a tragedy that spurred scrutiny of industry practices and regulatory gaps. The Bar Association links the call for reform to a wider debate about accountability and systemic vulnerabilities. In this context, the proposal is presented as a pragmatic response: a relatively quick legislative adjustment intended to strengthen deterrence and give whistle-blowers greater confidence that reports of wrongdoing will lead to more consequential enforcement.
Potential implications for enforcement and whistle-blowers
If lawmakers accept the proposal, the legal landscape for corporate competition cases would change significantly. Regulators could use civil measures to obtain remedies such as fines and injunctions while prosecutors could pursue criminal charges in the most egregious situations. Observers note that introducing criminalisation could increase the seriousness with which industry actors assess compliance programs and make internal reporting channels more attractive for employees aware of collusion. The Bar Association specifically highlights the aim of encouraging more whistle-blowing by signalling tougher penalties and a higher probability of meaningful action.
Practical considerations and next steps
Any amendment to the Competition Ordinance would require careful drafting to balance deterrence, procedural fairness, and international norms. Lawmakers and stakeholders would need to define evidentiary standards, protections for whistle-blowers, and the interaction between civil remedies and criminal prosecutions to avoid duplicative or conflicting outcomes. The Bar Association has submitted its recommendations to relevant authorities and framed the change as a targeted reform rather than a wholesale overhaul of the 2015 framework.
As the discussion progresses, employers, legal advisers and compliance professionals will likely reassess risk-management strategies to reflect the possibility of stronger sanctions. Whether the proposal leads to statutory change, and how quickly that might occur, remains a matter for lawmakers and regulators to decide. For now, the Bar Association’s paper has brought renewed attention to the limits of the current civil regime and to the potential of a double-track response to shift behaviour across competitive markets.
