Rough Seas for International Cartels: DOJ Indicts Four of the Largest Container Manufacturers and Executives for Price-Fixing

Overview

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (the Division) revealed criminal charges against China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd. (CIMC) and several other major Chinese companies and executives involved in the manufacture and sale of standard dry shipping containers, which are used for shipping dry, unrefrigerated cargo on ships around the world. One of the executives was arrested at an airport in France and is awaiting extradition to the U.S. The indictment charged these defendants with violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrict output and fix prices of standard dry containers, including in the U.S. market, from 2019 to 2024.

This enforcement action signals the Division’s continued interest in cartel conspiracies, especially those affecting U.S. trade channels and the shipping industry. For example, in 2019, the Division, after conducting a covert investigation,  unsealed an indictment it brought against two Norwegian shipping executives for their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy to allocate certain customers and routes, rig bids, and fix prices for the sale of international ocean shipments of cargo. Similarly, the present shipping container investigation also appears to have been conducted covertly, a reminder that the Division frequently uses covert investigation methods such as wiretaps and other tactics to gather information.

Key Allegations of the Case

The January 22, 2026, superseding indictment that was made public last week alleges that four major Chinese companies and seven foreign nationals who were executives at those companies engaged in a coordinated price-fixing and output-restriction conspiracy from at least November 2019 through January 2024. These entities, collectively responsible for around 95% of the world’s standard dry-shipping containers, allegedly limited production shifts and hours, and also “[i]nstall[ed] 87 video surveillance cameras on all 49 dry container production lines to ensure that the companies did not exceed agreed-upon” quotas. They also avoided new factory construction, created penalty funds, and communicated secretly, either in-person or via WeChat groups, to control production quotas. Defendants allegedly took steps to conceal their actions by deleting documents and assuring communications were discreet.

Between 2019 and 2021, DOJ alleges that the scheme “roughly doubled the prices of standard shipping containers” and significantly inflated U.S. shipping costs “during the COVID-19 pandemic and global supply chain crisis.” CIMC’s profits from container manufacturing jumped from $19.8 million in 2019 to nearly $1.75 billion in 2021. Outside of the conspiracy, which focused on dry, unrefrigerated containers, CIMC also tried to coordinate with other competing manufacturers to control the output of refrigerated containers, but its efforts were unsuccessful.

The Division alleges that the conspiracy directly affected U.S. interstate commerce by fixing prices on imported shipping containers, which are critical to the movement of goods into and within the U.S. Commenting that the conspiracy “stole from everyday Americans who paid more and waited longer for vital goods,” Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division Omeed A. Assefi reiterated the Division’s “commit[ment] to protecting consumers and holding accountable anyone — anywhere in the world — who exploits Americans for ill-gotten gains.”

Practical Takeaways

The recently unsealed indictment signals that the DOJ remains willing to bring large, high-profile criminal cases based on traditional price-fixing and output-restriction theories.

• Companies should revisit their antirust policies and ensure they have robust policies and trainings in place. Companies should similarly confirm that employees in sales and pricing functions, including those outside the U.S., are trained on antitrust compliance.
• If improper conduct regarding price-fixing or other antitrust violations like bid-rigging or price discrimination is discovered, companies should consider whether self-disclosure is appropriate, given the Division’s ng-standing leniency program.
• Relatedly, when assessing potential misconduct, companies now face a greater “race” to self-report conduct before it is reported through the Division’s recent whistleblower program, which, since its inception in July 2025, has already led to a $1 million award to an individual whose information led to a $3.28 million fine as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.