Abstract

The present study makes an attempt to make comparison between China and Pakistan with reference to Competition law. The research aims to find out that whether or not the evidences submitted by the companies during the course investigation can substantially be used in any other legal proceeding. As far as the methodology of this study is concerned, qualitative data analysis is used along with comparative legal method for analyzing “de lege lata” and “de lege ferenda” situation in scope of the solved topic. The study finds out that competition in Pakistan works same as China’s AML since both forbids actions that play their negative role in reducing the competition like market dominance in the market. Therefore, the act encourages agreements that confine and restrict market dominance. Furthermore, methods and policies are stated by the law with reference to review of enquiries, acquisitions, mergers, penalties’ imposition, leniency’s grant along with other aspects of law enforcement. The evidences submitted by the companies during the course investigation can substantially be used in any other legal proceeding. The study concluded while contending that, however, AML in China and competition Act in Pakistan has provided both countries substantive and sound law, but there is need of strong and effective institutional implement which can provide a base for the evidences submitted by the companies during the course investigation to be substantially used in any other legal proceeding. Compliance is promoted by leniency through competition law along with incentives to prohibited arrangements. Qualitative research methodology has been applied to the following article.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.