China moves antitrust personal liability from principle to practice: the draft Monopoly Agreement Individual Liability Guidelines
- On 27 August 2026, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) published the Draft Guidelines on the Application of Individual Liability for Monopoly Agreements for public comment, with feedback due by 10 September 2026.
2026年8月27日，市场监管总局就《垄断协议个人责任适用指引（征求意见稿）》向社会公开征求意见，意见反馈截止日期为2026年9月10日。
- The draft implements the “dual-penalty” rule introduced by the 2022 Anti-Monopoly Law: legal representatives, principal responsible persons and directly responsible personnel of an undertaking may each be fined up to RMB 1 million where they bear individual responsibility for concluding a monopoly agreement.
征求意见稿落地2022年《反垄断法》确立的”双罚制”：对达成垄断协议负有个人责任的法定代表人、主要负责人和直接责任人员，反垄断执法机构可以对其处一百万元以下罚款。
- Individual responsibility attaches to those who organise, lead, decide, command, or instigate, approve or connive at the conclusion of a monopoly agreement; harsher treatment is reserved for agreements harming national interests in key areas such as people’s livelihoods, ecology, work safety, financial capital and data security.
对达成垄断协议起到组织、领导、决策、指挥作用，或授意、批准、纵容达成垄断协议的个人追究责任；涉及民生保障、生态环境、安全生产、金融资本、数据安全等重点领域、危害国家利益的垄断协议，将严格追究个人责任。
- Aggravating factors include instigating, coercing or deceiving others into a monopoly agreement or obstructing others from withdrawing from one; co-operation with the investigation and proactive removal of harm may lead to lighter penalties; individual liability does not lapse on resignation or departure.
教唆、胁迫、诱骗他人达成垄断协议或妨碍他人停止参与等构成从重处罚情节；积极配合调查、主动消除危害后果可依法从轻处罚；个人责任不因其离职等情形而免除。
- For executives of foreign-invested companies and joint ventures operating in China, the guidelines signal that antitrust compliance can no longer be treated as a purely corporate matter — individual managers face personal exposure, mirroring the personal-liability regimes long applied to executives in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.
对在华经营的外资企业与合资企业高管而言，指引意味着反垄断合规不再只是企业层面的事务——管理者个人将面临直接责任风险，这与美国、英国、澳大利亚等长期对高管施加个人责任的制度形成呼应。
China moves antitrust personal liability from principle to practice: the draft Monopoly Agreement Individual Liability Guidelines | 反垄断”双罚制”落地提速：《垄断协议个人责任适用指引（征求意见稿）》解读
Overview
On 27 August 2026, SAMR published the Draft Guidelines on the Application of Individual Liability for Monopoly Agreements (《垄断协议个人责任适用指引（征求意见稿）》) and invited public comment until 10 September 2026. The draft turns a provision of the 2022 Anti-Monopoly Law into an operational enforcement framework. Article 56 of the amended law already stated that legal representatives, principal responsible persons and directly responsible personnel of an undertaking may be fined up to RMB 1 million where they bear personal responsibility for concluding a monopoly agreement. The Guidelines explain who falls into that category, which factors matter, and how penalties are calibrated.
Why the Guidelines matter now
Price-fixing, output restriction and market-division agreements are widely regarded as the most damaging form of anti-competitive conduct, and they are typically the product of collusion among executives rather than of a company acting as an abstract legal person. Before the 2022 amendment, the Anti-Monopoly Law contained no explicit personal-liability rule, and in practice “the undertaking bears responsibility while individuals walk free” — a gap that diluted deterrence. The 2022 amendment introduced the “dual-penalty” structure; the draft Guidelines now give it operational shape.
The drafting note explains that Article 56 is framed in principle-level language and needs more specific rules on the circumstances of application, the factors for identifying responsible individuals, and the calibration of sanctions. The guidelines follow roughly four years of enforcement experience, including 2025 cases in which Shanghai and Tianjin market-regulation authorities applied the personal-liability clause to executives in pharmaceutical monopoly cases. Those cases operated as tentative breakthroughs; the Guidelines are designed to make the rule uniformly applicable.
Who bears individual responsibility
Under the draft, individual responsibility arises where the legal representative, principal responsible person or directly responsible personnel of an undertaking:
- plays an organising, leading, deciding or commanding role in reaching the monopoly agreement; or
- instigates, approves or connives at the conclusion of the agreement.
Responsibility is not limited to those who sign documents: executives who set the strategy, chairs who run the coordination meeting, sales directors who transmit the price signal and compliance officers who turn a blind eye can all fall within the draft’s language depending on the evidence. The reference to “instigating, approving or conniving” is deliberately broad, capturing passive as well as active involvement.
Calibration: aggravating and mitigating factors
The draft sets out factors that push penalties up or down:
- Aggravating circumstances include instigating, coercing or deceiving others into concluding a monopoly agreement, and obstructing others from ceasing participation. Agreements that harm national interests in key areas — people’s livelihoods, the ecological environment, production safety, financial capital and data security — attract strict pursuit of personal liability.
- Mitigating circumstances include actively co-operating with the investigation and voluntarily eliminating or mitigating the harmful consequences of the agreement.
- No escape by resignation: individual liability is not extinguished by the person’s departure from the undertaking, meaning former executives of a company under investigation can still be pursued.
What this means in practice
- A clearer compliance baseline for executives. The Guidelines supply the previously missing detail about who is at risk and what conduct triggers exposure. For multinationals with Chinese operations, antitrust training and certification for local executives, and board-level attention to pricing, output and territorial allocation decisions, become materially more important.
- Personal exposure rather than corporate-only risk. Fines of up to RMB 1 million per individual sit alongside corporate fines that, under the law, can reach 10 per cent of the undertaking’s turnover in the previous year. For regional heads, country managers and joint-venture general managers, the calculus of joining a cartel conversation changes.
- Interaction with leniency. The reference to active co-operation and harm removal as mitigating factors should be read together with the existing leniency (immunity) system for undertakings that self-report; companies and individuals alike need counsel on sequencing a leniency application and individual cooperation.
- Joint ventures and intra-group arrangements deserve special review. Pricing and market-allocation discussions inside a JV board, or coordination between a parent and a Chinese partner, can raise monopoly-agreement questions in which individual executives of both sides are exposed. The same applies to trade associations that organise output or price coordination — the individuals behind them can now be targeted directly.
- HR and compliance governance. Consider adding individual-liability clauses to employment contracts or code-of-conduct acknowledgements, ensuring that departing executives’ files are preserved, and reviewing directors’ and officers’ insurance arrangements in light of the new personal exposure.
Practical steps
- Review the draft and, where appropriate, submit comments to SAMR before 10 September 2026 (the public-comment channel on SAMR’s website).
- Audit existing pricing, output, market-allocation and bid-coordination practices, especially any engagement with trade associations or industry roundtables.
- Deliver tailored antitrust training to legal representatives, general managers, sales and procurement heads, with sign-off records retained as evidence of a compliance culture.
- Prepare internal escalation and “stop and call counsel” protocols for any invitation to fix prices or divide markets, including inside joint-venture governance bodies.
- Monitor the final version of the Guidelines and any provincial enforcement guidance; expect SAMR and provincial bureaus to apply the personal-liability rule in the next wave of cartel investigations.
Sources
- 人民日报（人民网吉林频道）— 市场监管总局发布《垄断协议个人责任适用指引（征求意见稿）》: https://jl.people.com.cn/n2/2026/0831/c349771-41682074.html
- 央视新闻 — 事关垄断协议个人责任追责范围等 市场监管总局公开征求意见（反馈截止2026年9月10日）: https://finance.cctv.cn/2026/08/28/ARTI5rL9FjtOSM6uoFF6fJzU260828.shtml
- 央广网 — 反垄断执法开始向穿透式追责到人转变: https://www.cnr.cn/jingji/ycbd/20260828/t20260828_527796366.shtml
Related reading
- see also: merger control and antitrust basics for foreign investors (38-anti-monopoly-merger-control)
- see also: SAMR’s enforcement approach to monopolistic conduct in the 2026 cycle (13-policy-updates)
反垄断”双罚制”落地提速：《垄断协议个人责任适用指引（征求意见稿）》解读
概述
2026年8月27日，市场监管总局就《垄断协议个人责任适用指引（征求意见稿）》向社会公开征求意见，反馈截止日期为2026年9月10日。征求意见稿把2022年修订《反垄断法》中的一项条款转化为可操作的执法框架。修订后《反垄断法》第五十六条已经写明：经营者的法定代表人、主要负责人和直接责任人员对达成垄断协议负有个人责任的，可以处一百万元以下罚款。指引要解决的是：谁属于这几类人、何种情形构成个人责任、处罚如何裁量。
为什么现在出台
联合涨价、限制产量、划分市场等垄断协议被世界各国公认为对市场竞争损害最严重的垄断行为，而其达成往往与经营者高管之间的合谋密切相关。2022年修法前，《反垄断法》对垄断协议的个人责任没有明确规定，实践中普遍出现”单位承担责任、个人免于追责”的情形，威慑力不足。2022年修法确立”双罚制”后，起草说明指出，第五十六条的表述较为原则，在具体适用情形、认定因素及处罚裁量上需要更明确、细化的规定，因此有必要制定本指引。
指引也建立在约四年的执法探索之上：2025年，上海市市场监督管理局在上海信谊联合医药等三家经营者垄断协议案中首次适用该条款，对责任人罚款五十万元；同年天津市市场监督管理局在原料药垄断案中对四名责任人分别罚款，并对组织垄断协议的自然人罚款五十万元。个案属于制度探索，指引则致力于让该制度普遍适用。
谁承担个人责任
依征求意见稿，经营者中的以下个人对达成垄断协议负有个人责任：
- 起到组织、领导、决策、指挥作用者；或
- 授意、批准、纵容达成垄断协议者。
责任不以签字为限：定调子的高管、主持会议的董事长、传递价格信号的销售总监、睁一只眼闭一只眼的合规负责人，都可能依证据落入文义范围。”授意、批准、纵容”的表述刻意宽泛，兼顾主动参与与消极放任。
裁量：从重与从轻因素
指引给出上下调节的裁量因素：
- 从重情形：教唆、胁迫、诱骗他人达成垄断协议；妨碍他人停止参与垄断协议。垄断协议涉及民生保障、生态环境、安全生产、金融资本、数据安全等重点领域、危害国家利益的，将严格追究个人责任。
- 从轻情形：积极配合调查、主动消除垄断协议危害后果等。
- 离职不免责：相关个人责任不因其离职等情形而免除——被调查企业的前高管仍可能被追责。
对外资与合资企业的现实意义
- 高管合规基线更清晰。 指引补齐了此前缺失的细节：谁有风险、何种行为触发责任。在华经营的外企需要更重视对本地高管的反垄断培训与签署确认，董事会层面也要关注定价、产量与区域划分类决策。
- 个人风险与企业风险并立。 个人最高百万元罚款之外，企业可能面临上一年度营业额最高10%的罚款。对区域负责人、国家经理、合资企业总经理而言，参与卡特尔对话的成本结构已彻底改变。
- 与宽大制度衔接。 “积极配合调查、主动消除危害后果可从轻”应结合企业自首宽大制度一并理解；企业与个人都需要专业意见来安排自首申请与个人配合的先后顺序。
- 合资企业与集团内安排需专项审查。 合资企业董事会内的定价与市场划分讨论、母公司与中方伙伴之间的协调，可能引致垄断协议问题，双方高管个人均处于风险中。组织限产定价的行业协会背后的个人，现在也可能被直接追责。
- 人事与治理安排。 可在劳动合同或行为准则中加入个人责任条款，确保离职高管档案完整留存，并据新的个人敞口审视董监高责任保险安排。
实务建议
- 研读征求意见稿，必要时于2026年9月10日前通过总局官网意见征集渠道反馈。
- 排查既有定价、产量、市场划分与投标协同做法，尤其涉及行业协会或行业座谈会的活动。
- 为法定代表人、总经理、销售与采购负责人定制反垄断培训，并留存签署记录作为合规文化证据。
- 建立内部升级与”叫停并咨询律师”机制，覆盖任何被邀请固定价格或划分市场的场景，包括合资企业治理会议之内。
- 跟踪指引最终稿与各省级执法指引；预计总局与省级局将在下一轮卡特尔调查中适用个人责任条款。
来源
- 人民日报（人民网吉林频道）— 市场监管总局发布《垄断协议个人责任适用指引（征求意见稿）》: https://jl.people.com.cn/n2/2026/0831/c349771-41682074.html
- 央视新闻 — 事关垄断协议个人责任追责范围等 市场监管总局公开征求意见（反馈截止2026年9月10日）: https://finance.cctv.cn/2026/08/28/ARTI5rL9FjtOSM6uoFF6fJzU260828.shtml
- 央广网 — 反垄断执法开始向穿透式追责到人转变: https://www.cnr.cn/jingji/ycbd/20260828/t20260828_527796366.shtml
相关阅读
- 见：外资投资者应知的反垄断并购与经营者集中基础（38-anti-monopoly-merger-control）
- 见：市场监管总局2026年轮反垄断执法动态（13-policy-updates）