A Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) investigation is one of the most serious legal situations a business can face. MyCC has extensive investigatory powers — comparable to those of a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code — including the power to demand documents and information, enter and search premises, access computerised data, and interview staff. The financial penalty for a Competition Act infringement can reach 10 per cent of your worldwide turnover for the entire infringement period.
At NZSK, our competition lawyers in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor represent businesses at every stage of a MyCC investigation — from the very first contact, through written and oral representations in response to a proposed decision, to appeals before the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We act from offices in Mont Kiara, KL and Puchong, Selangor, and we bring litigation expertise and competition law knowledge to every investigation we handle.
Critically, how you respond in the early stages of a MyCC investigation — including what documents you produce, what explanations you provide, and whether you consider a leniency application or voluntary undertaking — will significantly affect the outcome. Do not respond to MyCC without first taking legal advice.
Why Choose Us?


15+ Years
Law Experience

500+ Cases
Matter Handled

400+ Cases
Custody Secured

RM10Mil +
Hidden Assets Uncovered
The MyCC Investigation Process — Stage by Stage
Stage 1 — Information Request or Notice of Investigation
A MyCC investigation typically begins with either an information request (requiring the production of specific documents or information) or a formal notice of investigation. Both require prompt and carefully managed responses. You have legal rights at this stage — including legal professional privilege over communications with your lawyers — but you also have legal obligations: failure to provide information or providing false information to MyCC is a criminal offence.
We advise on the scope of your legal obligations at this stage, on how to respond to information requests in a manner that protects your legal position, on claims for legal professional privilege, and on the strategic implications of different response approaches.
Stage 2 — MyCC Investigation
During the investigation phase, MyCC may conduct interviews with directors and employees, request further documents and information, search premises (with or without a warrant, depending on the circumstances), and access electronic records and systems. We advise on managing this process — including preparing key personnel for MyCC interviews, advising on document retention and retrieval, and managing the ongoing flow of information to MyCC.
Stage 3 — Proposed Decision
If MyCC concludes that there is an infringement, it will issue a Proposed Decision — a document setting out its preliminary findings and the penalty it proposes to impose. The Proposed Decision is not final: the enterprise has the right to submit written representations and, if necessary, to make oral representations before the Commission members of MyCC within the time specified.
The written and oral representations stage is critical. This is the enterprise’s principal opportunity to challenge MyCC’s legal analysis, contest the factual findings, present exculpatory evidence, and argue for a reduction in the proposed penalty on the grounds of mitigating factors. We have extensive experience in preparing written representations and conducting oral representations before MyCC.
Stage 4 — Final Decision
Following receipt of representations, MyCC issues a Final Decision — setting out whether there is a finding of infringement, the grounds for the decision, and the financial penalty imposed. The Final Decision is subject to appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Voluntary Undertakings — Section 43 of the Competition Act
An enterprise under MyCC investigation may, at any point before the close of the investigation, offer a voluntary undertaking to MyCC under section 43 of the Competition Act — committing to do or refrain from doing specific things. If MyCC accepts the undertaking, it closes the investigation without issuing a Proposed Decision or imposing a penalty.
A voluntary undertaking can be a commercially attractive option in appropriate cases — avoiding the uncertainty, cost, and reputational impact of a full investigation and decision process. However, the terms of the undertaking must be carefully negotiated: an undertaking that is too broad in scope or too long in duration can impose ongoing commercial burdens that outweigh the benefit of avoiding a formal finding. We advise on whether a voluntary undertaking is appropriate in your specific situation and on the negotiation of its terms.
Leniency — Reducing or Eliminating the Penalty
MyCC’s Leniency Programme allows an enterprise that has participated in a cartel to apply for immunity from (or a reduction in) the financial penalty, in exchange for cooperation with MyCC’s investigation. Full immunity is available only to the first enterprise to apply and requires cooperation throughout the investigation. Subsequent applicants may receive a reduction in the penalty rather than full immunity.
The decision to apply for leniency, and the timing and scope of that application, is one of the most consequential decisions a business can make in a competition law investigation. A premature or poorly structured leniency application can expose the applicant to risks it had not anticipated. We advise on leniency strategy in strict confidence.
Penalty Mitigation — Reducing the Financial Exposure
Even where an infringement is established and a penalty is imposed, there are significant opportunities to reduce the quantum of the penalty through effective written and oral representations to MyCC. Mitigating factors recognised under MyCC’s penalty guidelines include: early cooperation with the investigation; steps taken to terminate the infringement promptly; remedial action taken to address the harm caused; limited role in the infringement; and financial hardship. We advise on the most effective penalty mitigation strategy for each specific case.
How We Have Helped — MyCC Investigation Defence
Anonymised examples of MyCC investigation defence matters we have handled. Details modified to protect client confidentiality.
Manufacturing Sector | MyCC Information Request | Document Review & Response Management
| The Situation
A medium-sized manufacturer in the Klang Valley received a broad MyCC information request covering five years of internal pricing communications, sales records, and correspondence with competitors and industry associations. Management was uncertain about the scope of their legal obligations, what was protected by privilege, and how to respond without inadvertently incriminating the company. |
What We Did
We were engaged on the day the information request was received. We conducted an immediate privileged review of all responsive documents, identified and segregated legally privileged materials, advised management on the precise scope of the production obligation, and prepared a structured written response that was fully compliant with MyCC’s statutory requirements while appropriately protecting the company’s legal position. We also advised on internal communication protocols for the duration of the investigation. |
✔ Outcome
The company made a timely, complete, and legally sound response to the information request. MyCC did not escalate to a formal investigation notice against this company — the matter was resolved at the information-gathering stage without any finding of infringement or penalty. |
Professional Services | MyCC Proposed Decision | Oral Representations | Penalty Reduced
| The Situation
A professional services firm received a MyCC Proposed Decision finding a Chapter 1 infringement and proposing a significant financial penalty calculated on its worldwide turnover across an alleged four-year infringement period. The firm disputed both the duration of the infringement alleged and the characterisation of its involvement as active rather than passive. |
What We Did
We prepared detailed written representations challenging the start date of the alleged infringement period — presenting evidence that the firm’s participation only commenced at a later date — and arguing that its role was passive and followed, rather than initiated, the conduct of other participants. We requested an oral representation hearing and appeared before the MyCC Commissioners to present these arguments directly, supported by documentary evidence and legal submissions on the applicable penalty guidelines. |
✔ Outcome
MyCC accepted our submission on the infringement duration, shortening the period against which the penalty was calculated. The firm’s passive role was accepted as a significant mitigating factor. The final penalty was reduced by more than 40 per cent from the proposed amount. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Speak to a Competition Lawyer Now!
- (+60)16-557 4789 | (+60)3-8060 0267
- [email protected]
Consultation by appointment — Mont Kiara, Kuala Lumpur & Puchong, Selangor
Related Topics
Competition Compliance
Private Actions & Follow-On
Competition Appeal Tribunal
Abuse of Dominant Position
