The chapter reports that the leniency programme in Hong Kong was promulgated at the same time that the Hong Kong Competition Ordinance went into full effect in 2015. This leniency programme has been successfully used once. The Hong Kong Competition Commission (HKCC) reached a leniency agreement in 2020, despite the strong focus of the HKCC on tackling cartels. Six out of the seven cases the HKCC has brought to the Hong Kong Competition Tribunal are cartel related. These enforcement successes are attributable to market studies of the HKCC itself. However, this situation should not be misinterpreted. With the arrival of Brent Snyder as the Chief Executive Officer of the HKCC, the leniency programme was revised. Lenient treatment remained limited to immunity, but also became available once an investigation has started. Two new schemes were introduced: leniency for individuals and leniency plus. A leniency applicant has also been given immunity from damages claims. Further, reduction was made possible through the introduction of a cooperation policy. These recent changes should contribute to enforcement and supplement the successfully concluded ex officio investigations.

This chapter examines the competition sanctions regime in Kenya. Competition sanctions and enforcement tools adopted by the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) have evolved, in what has been a historical shift. During its earlier years of operation, CAK required undertakings found to have engaged in restrictive trade practices to undertake advocacy initiatives, or cease and desist from future conduct. However, in the recent past CAK has continually imposed punitive administrative fines, increasing them steadily. In most cases, undertakings have preferred to enter into a settlement agreement with CAK. At the time of writing , no cartel case had been prosecuted in Kenya and no administrative fines had been imposed on an individual. To enhance detection of cartel conduct, CAK has adopted novel enforcement tools such as the informant reward scheme and the leniency program whose effectiveness is yet to be evaluated. The biggest challenge facing the Kenyan competition sanctioning regime is a low level of competition culture and a lack of public awareness, making CAK over-reliant on its own investigations and market inquiries in detecting cartel conduct. By taking stock of the Kenyan competition regime, this chapter provides understanding of the appropriate sanctions and remedies adopted by young and emerging competition agencies in developing countries.