Source: United States Attorneys General 7
Thank you to Global Competition Review for putting together today’s program. I am grateful for the opportunity to close out what I imagine has been a full day of interesting discussions.
Let me cut to the chase. As I’m sure you are all aware, like the rest of the federal government, we at the Antitrust Division are in the midst of a transition. I know from my experience at the Division through previous transitions that these periods always raise questions about our enforcement levels and priorities going forward, about how we’ll deploy our finite resources. And I know you all are eager for answers on whether and how our enforcement priorities might shift. Of course, I won’t attempt to speak for our new and incoming leadership team at the Department, but what I can say is that I fully expect robust antitrust enforcement to continue, with cartel enforcement being no exception.
With that said, I will offer some thoughts on our recent and ongoing criminal enforcement work and our core mission.
I’ll start with a few simple truths.
First, our country relies on free markets.
Second, vigorous antitrust enforcement is essential to protect free markets and ensure that we all receive the benefits of competition.
Third, that enforcement mission has a critical criminal prosecution component. If we did not prosecute those who commit antitrust crimes like price fixing and monopolization schemes, unchecked collusion, consolidation, and anticompetitive crimes would distort our markets and raise prices — including on everyday products we all rely on, as well as for vital goods and services the government needs to ensure our national security and provide critical infrastructure. This is why areas like healthcare, defense spending, agriculture and food supply, infrastructure and housing, and technology for just a few examples, continue to be staples of our work.
So, it is not surprising that we are continuing to investigate and charge criminal cases — across a wide array of sectors and across all levels of the economy. These investigations and cases have significant impacts on key areas of public procurement and private spending.
We are not even through the first quarter of 2025, and already our statistics are tangible evidence that our enforcement is not letting up. Thus far this year, our teams have charged 15 defendants — one company and 14 individuals — and have obtained 24 guilty pleas — two from companies and 22 from individuals. I would be the first to acknowledge that numbers aren’t the whole story. Much of our work goes on behind the scenes, in a covert posture, and the public filings are merely the tip of a vast iceberg.
But the numbers can certainly tell you something about our priorities. I think you can take away two things from these statistics: first, we are not shying away from enforcement; and second, we remain deeply committed to individual accountability — never forgetting the essential, unique deterrent role that prison sentences serve.
The recent charges include a slate of guilty pleas in US v. Martinez, a case where 12 individuals were charged with using anticompetitive and violent means to monopolize the market for transmigrante forwarding services in the Los Indios, Texas, area, and to enforce a price fixing and market allocation conspiracy. The majority of defendants have now pleaded guilty, including to landmark criminal monopolization conspiracy charges.
I’ll note that it was just about three years ago when Antitrust Division officials began observing in public fora like this one that Section 2 of the Sherman Act, like Section 1, is a felony offense and that the Antitrust Division had a long and storied record — albeit interrupted by a half century of underenforcement — of prosecuting monopolization crimes. Several years ago, some may have thought it remarkable to hear from an enforcer that if the facts and the law lead us to the conclusion that a criminal charge based on Section 2 of the Sherman Act is warranted, we’ll charge it. But from where we stand today, the landscape has changed. Several years on, the Division has done exactly what was previewed: we have charged several criminal monopolization cases, using the statute as Congress wrote and intended it to punish those who seek to monopolize markets through anticompetitive means.
The charges in Martinez are also illustrative for another reason — they show that antitrust crimes occur at all levels of the economy and that antitrust crime can also occur alongside and be carried out with other crimes — including extortion and acts of violence.
Beyond Martinez, the Division’s recent guilty pleas include defendants charged with conspiracies and schemes targeting government procurement, which our teams investigated with our law enforcement partners through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force. For example, four defendants pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges arising from schemes targeting IT sales to the Department of Defense and intelligence community. Those pleas included a former government official who admitted to accepting bribes in exchange for ensuring that another defendant received government contracts at inflated prices.
And within the last month, three individuals and one company admitted to rigging bids in the Division’s ongoing investigation into widespread bid rigging and fraud targeting sports equipment for schools that has, in total, resulted in six defendants charged to date, all of whom have pleaded guilty. At least 100 schools throughout Mississippi and elsewhere have been victimized by these conspiracies. And in a different investigation, another defendant recently pleaded guilty to obstruction for destroying evidence, demonstrating yet again that we will pursue cases where defendants seek to obstruct or impede criminal or civil antitrust investigations by destroying evidence or lying to agents and enforcers.
Additional recent successes relate to our continued pursuit of bid rigging and collusion in construction and infrastructure industries. In an ongoing investigation, four individuals and a company recently admitted rigging bids for commercial roofing services in Florida — a vital industry given that safe, affordable roofing is critical to Florida communities prone to hurricanes. And two more individuals pleaded guilty in a long running investigation of bid rigging of asphalt paving services in the Detroit area. In total seven individuals and three companies have been charged and admitted guilt in that investigation.
I think it’s also worth noting that these charges continue to expose individuals to real prison sentences — leading to significant general deterrence. Take as one example the most recent criminal antitrust case that went to trial — against two executives, Greg and David Melton, who were convicted of fixing prices, rigging bids, and allocating jobs in the sale of ready-mix concrete in the Savannah, Georgia area. They were sentenced to 41 and 26 months in prison.
At that sentencing hearing — I will quote from the transcript because it is an important reminder of how courts view these violations — the judge observed that the crime of conviction was, in effect, “years of decisions that stole from the American people, from our economy.”
The judge went on to say: “That’s what antitrust is. It’s like thievery, because at the bedrock of the greatest economy in the history of the world is competition. That’s what we’ve always been founded on. I have naturalization ceremonies in our courtrooms, and I tell new citizens, welcome to the country where you have the greatest potential and opportunity that you’ll ever have, because we’re a meritocracy. You come here; you do a good job, and you can obtain anything. That’s the American dream.
When we rig a system, when we rig government or we rig the economy, we steal from that dream.
It’s very, very serious conduct; and that’s why we have serious consequences for it.”
And this is precisely why our work continues. Teams are preparing for three trials in the coming months. The first of these, scheduled to begin March 24 in Las Vegas, charges an individual with wage fixing and fraud in the healthcare industry. Next up, is another individual trial, set for April in the District of Idaho, on charges of market allocation in wildfire fighting services sold to the U.S. Forest Service, part of our ongoing work prosecuting procurement collusion through the PCSF. And in May, a team is heading to Oklahoma to try a case against two executives and a company charged with rigging bids and fixing prices in erosion control products and services for highway construction.
These cases, like so many others we have brought, have a direct impact on the livelihood of regular Americans and are a vital part of our government’s work to safeguard the public’s tax dollars. Their variety — in terms of industry and geography — reflect the breadth of our work and its importance to our country.
Beyond those cases, our covert and nonpublic work is ongoing. We have more grand jury investigations open now than at any time in my career, more than twice as many investigations as we had a decade ago. I expect to be able to share developments in some of these investigations in the near future.
In sum, our criminal enforcement work is continuing.
I want to conclude by recognizing the work that the Antitrust Division does cannot happen without its people — the beating heart of the organization. Fundamentally, the Antitrust Division is its people, who make significant sacrifices to perform their public service roles. They continue to operate at the highest level as they investigate and prosecute cases to protect American consumers and our open markets. I’m so proud of the work they do, and I remain incredibly grateful that I have the opportunity to work alongside them every day. Thank you.
MIL Security OSI –