Four South Korean oil companies, accused of colluding to fix prices amid the U.S.-Iran conflict, denied the charges during their first court hearing.
The Seoul Central District Court held its initial hearing on August 20 for HD Hyundai Oilbank, SK Energy, S-OIL, and GS Caltex, along with four executives, who are facing allegations of violating fair trade laws.
Prosecutors allege that HD Hyundai Oilbank exchanged pricing information with SK Energy starting in July 2024 and agreed to raise prices simultaneously after the outbreak of war. They estimate the direct collusion to be worth approximately 14 trillion won. Including collusion by GS Caltex and S-OIL, the total competitive restriction effect is believed to reach about 26 trillion won.
While HD Hyundai Oilbank was indicted on these charges, SK Energy and its employees were excluded from prosecution under a self-reporting leniency program. GS Caltex and S-OIL were also not included in the indictment, arguing they were not subject to penalties under fair trade laws.
However, HD Hyundai Oilbank, SK Energy, GS Caltex, and S-OIL were all indicted for allegedly imposing unilateral pricing decisions on gas stations through contracts requiring full purchases, leveraging their superior market position.
During the hearing, the four oil companies categorically denied the allegations.
HD Hyundai Oilbank stated, "The prosecution's claims suggest that structural corruption or collusion is rampant in the oil industry and that this influenced price increases during the war, which is not true." They added, "We were unusually indicted quickly, and we could not clarify the facts during the investigation. We will provide a detailed account in court."
SK Energy responded to the full purchase contract allegations, saying, "This matter was conducted in reference to the Fair Trade Commission's corrective orders," and expressed difficulty in understanding the application of the charges. GS Caltex also argued that gas stations had the option to choose among various oil companies at the contract stage and could refuse contract renewals, asserting that the full purchase contracts do not constitute unfair trading.
S-OIL also denied the charges and stated they would review additional evidence before submitting a detailed opinion.
The court scheduled the next hearing for September 22, but it will proceed as a preparatory session due to the defendants' need to review evidence and organize their opinions.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.