The Central Criminal Court imposed a total of €100,000 in fines on Patrick Duffy and Duffy Motors (Newbridge) Limited after both pleaded guilty to entering and implementing an agreement to fix Citroen motor vehicle prices.
Mr Justice William M. McKechnie sentenced Duffy to six months in prison for entering the agreement and nine months for implementing it. He suspended both sentences in full for five years, subject to Duffy entering a bond. The judge said he was keeping the sentences aligned with those imposed in two earlier, similar prosecutions. He concluded that the additional implementation offences justified a difference in sentence, but not imprisonment that would have to be served.
The judge fined Duffy €20,000 for entering the agreement and €30,000 for implementing it. He imposed the same fines on the company, bringing the combined total to €100,000. The defendants were given three months to pay half and a further three months to pay the balance. If Duffy does not pay, he will serve 28 days in default; the company’s fine is enforceable by distress.
The guilty pleas were entered on 26 January 2009 to four counts: two against Duffy as a company director and two against the company. The charges concerned conduct between 24 June 1997 and 18 June 2002. The judge said the Director of Public Prosecutions would enter a nolle prosequi on the other charges.
The prosecution arose from a Competition Authority investigation into the Citroen Dealers Association, which the judgment said had operated since 1995. Evidence before the court described agreed prices and discounts, printed price lists, monitoring visits by undercover “mystery shoppers” and fines for dealers who broke the association’s rules. Duffy told investigators he had attended virtually all its meetings and had served as treasurer for about three years, including responsibility for association expenses and monitor costs.
The defendants’ mitigation submissions included Duffy’s guilty plea, cooperation, lack of previous convictions and personal circumstances. The judge gave credit for the pleas, which saved court time and effort, but found the cooperation had little practical value because the investigation already had strong evidence against him. He also rejected the claim that selected sales data showed meaningful cheating on the cartel’s rules, describing the evidence as incomplete and problematic.
The judgment records the sentence and payment terms. It does not report that the suspended prison sentences were activated or that the fines were later paid.