Countries › Panama › Guide › 13. Regulation › Cartels and abuse of dominance in Panama: absolute and relative monopolistic practices, fines up to B/.1,000,000 and treble damages

Cartels and abuse of dominance in Panama: absolute and relative monopolistic practices, fines up to B/.1,000,000 and treble damages

Last verified: 2026-10-29 · Status: Stable

Agreements among competitors to fix prices, limit output, share markets or rig public tenders are illegal per se, with fines up to B/.1,000,000. Vertical and unilateral conduct such as exclusive dealing, resale price maintenance and tying is illegal only if it unreasonably excludes rivals and the firm has substantial market power, with fines up to B/.250,000. Victims can sue for three times their damages.

Panama's currency, the balboa (B/.), is at par with the US dollar, which circulates as legal tender; the Superintendencia de Bancos states that the balboa's value is on a par with the US dollar (checked 29 October 2026). USD figures therefore equal the balboa figures.

Key facts

Maximum fine for absolute monopolistic practices (cartels)	1000000 PABLey 45 de 2007 art. 104 num. 1, as of 2026-10-29 · in force
Maximum fine for relative monopolistic practices	250000 PABLey 45 de 2007 art. 104 num. 2, as of 2026-10-29 · in force
Private damages multiple for competition violations	3x textLey 45 de 2007 art. 30, as of 2026-10-29 · in force
Leniency for first cartel informant	Available (not for market leader or instigator) textLey 45 de 2007 art. 104, as of 2026-10-29 · in force
Limitation period to start proceedings for restrictive practices	3 yearsLey 45 de 2007 art. 108, as of 2026-10-29 · in force

The rule

1. Absolute monopolistic practices are any agreement between actual or potential competitors, directly or through associations, to fix or exchange information to fix prices, restrict output or services, divide markets by customers, suppliers, time or territory, or coordinate bids or abstention in public procurement. They are illegal in themselves and have no legal validity, even if not completed.Ley 45 de 31 de octubre de 2007, arts. 12, 13 and 14, 2007-10-31 official text · verified 2026-10-29

2. Relative monopolistic practices (unilateral acts or agreements that unreasonably displace rivals, block their access or create exclusive advantages) include exclusive distribution among non competitors, resale price fixing by the supplier, tying, and sales conditioned on not dealing with third parties. They are illegal only if the elements of arts. 17 to 19 are proven, including relevant market and substantial power.Ley 45 de 2007, arts. 15 to 19, 2007-10-31 official text · verified 2026-10-29

3. A dominant or monopoly position is not itself an infringement if it was not obtained through prohibited practices. Acts that raise economic efficiency without harming consumers do not restrict competition, but the party alleging this must prove it.Ley 45 de 2007, arts. 5 and 11, 2007-10-31 official text · verified 2026-10-29

4. Before acting, a business may ask ACODECO in writing whether a planned act is a prohibited practice. ACODECO must answer within 30 days; silence means the act is lawful, unless the request rested on false or incomplete information.
Cost to do it: No fee is set in Ley 45 for the consultation.Ley 45 de 2007, art. 20, 2007-10-31 official text · verified 2026-10-29

5. Fines: up to B/.1,000,000 for absolute practices and up to B/.250,000 for relative practices, graded by gravity, company size and recidivism. Sanctions for monopolistic practices are imposed once a final court judgment establishes the violation. The first firm to bring evidence of an absolute practice may get a waiver or reduction if it is neither the market leader nor the instigator. A whistleblower receives 25 percent of the fines collected. The Ministry of Commerce must close the commercial licence of anyone sanctioned twice for monopolistic practices.
Example: A cartel member fined the maximum pays B/.1,000,000; a whistleblower whose complaint led to it may claim B/.250,000 once paid. / US$1,000,000 fine and US$250,000 whistleblower share.Ley 45 de 2007, art. 104, 2007-10-31 official text · verified 2026-10-29

6. Anyone harmed may bring a civil action and obtain three times the damages plus costs; the court may limit the award to single or double damages if the defendant acted without bad faith or intent to harm.
Example: Proven overcharge of B/.200,000 gives a claim of up to B/.600,000 plus costs. / US$200,000 of damages, up to US$600,000 awarded.Ley 45 de 2007, art. 30, 2007-10-31 official text · verified 2026-10-29

7. ACODECO may provisionally suspend an act it considers unlawful on indicative evidence, but must file the lawsuit within five business days or the suspension lapses.Ley 45 de 2007, art. 105, 2007-10-31 official text · verified 2026-10-29

8. The action to start proceedings for restrictive practices prescribes three years after the conduct.Ley 45 de 2007, art. 108, 2007-10-31 official text · verified 2026-10-29

	Absolute (arts. 12 to 14)	Relative (arts. 15 to 19)
Who	Competitors	Any firm, usually with market power
Test	Illegal per se	Rule of reason: relevant market and substantial power must be shown
Examples	Price fixing, output limits, market sharing, bid rigging	Exclusive distribution, resale price maintenance, tying, exclusivity conditions
Maximum fine	B/.1,000,000 (US$1,000,000)	B/.250,000 (US$250,000)

Two tiers of monopolistic practices under Ley 45 de 2007.

Worked example

Two importers agreeing by chat on a common retail price for Panama commit an absolute practice even if neither changes its price.
A supplier with 15 percent of the market requiring its dealers to resell at a set price is assessed under the relative test: ACODECO must show market power and an unreasonable exclusionary effect.

Step by step

Train sales teams: no price, volume, customer or bid discussions with competitors, including through trade associations.
Review distribution, exclusivity and resale price clauses for Panama against arts. 16 to 19.
For a doubtful plan, use the 30 day consultation under art. 20 and keep the answer.
If a cartel is discovered internally, assess the leniency route quickly, because only the first firm qualifies.

Common traps

Information exchange aimed at prices is itself an absolute practice.
Bid coordination in any form of public contracting (tenders, framework agreements, reverse auctions) is an absolute practice.
Two sanctions for monopolistic practices lead to closure of the commercial licence, a business ending result beyond the fine.
Leniency is closed to the market leader and to the instigator.

Sources

← Merger control in Panama: voluntary ACODECO verification, 60 day deemed approval and the three year challenge windowConsumer protection in Panama: ACODECO, price display, warranties, door to door sales and the 2027 pricing changes →

Get rule changes weekly

Free. One email a week from The LatAm Thread.

One more step after you press the button: we take you to Substack, where your email is already filled in. Confirm there to start. No spam, unsubscribe anytime, we never share your address. By subscribing you agree to the privacy policy.