Dawn raid obstruction: CMA issues first ever fines against individuals
On 17 September 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued penalty notices imposing the first ever fines against individuals for obstructing an unannounced inspection (a so-called “dawn raid”) by concealing evidence. The dawn raid was carried out in the context of an investigation into suspected bid-rigging in the construction sector.
On 10 December 2024, the CMA carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of construction firm M&J Group (Construction & Roofing) Ltd. A senior employee instructed the office manager to remove a mobile phone used for work and some paperwork from the business premises, concealing them from CMA investigators. Subsequently, the senior employee falsely stated that he did not have a work phone to CMA officials. Later that same day, M&J Group’s external lawyers submitted the concealed materials to the CMA. These were found to contain significant evidence including evidence of direct involvement by the senior employee in potential breaches of competition law.
The CMA fined M&J Group £25,000. For the first time, the CMA also fined the two individuals involved: the senior employee was fined £20,000 and the office manager £5,000.
The fines were imposed pursuant to the CMA’s civil enforcement powers under section 40A of the Competition Act 1998. Under this provision, the CMA may issue fines up to the following amounts:
- A company can be fined up to 1% of its turnover, a daily rate[1] of 5% of its turnover, or both; and
- An individual can be fined a fixed amount of up to £30,000, a daily rate of up to £15,000 per day, or both.
The severity of the failure to comply and importance of deterrence
The CMA’s penalty notices specify some aggravating factors which may increase the risk of a penalty: (i) a failure to comply is likely to have an adverse impact on the investigation; (ii) a failure to comply is significant or flagrant; and (iii) an individual or company seeks to derive a benefit from a failure to comply. All three factors were found in relation to the senior employee, whose seniority was also considered to contribute to the seriousness of the breach.
The penalty notices refer to the fines as “critical for deterrence”. This was also found to be the case for lower-level employees such as the office manager, who had no involvement in the underlying projects and did not stand to personally benefit from concealing the information, but whom the CMA nevertheless considered should be held accountable in order to secure specific and general deterrence.
This showcases the significance to investigations that information held by senior employees often has as well as the importance of compliance with CMA instructions in the context of unannounced inspections. Not only to ensure that the CMA can obtain access to relevant information but also to ensure an expedient investigation process. Indeed, although the concealed materials were produced later the same day, the dishonest, as opposed to negligent, nature of the concealment was particularly concerning in this case.
The relevance of employee evidence in private enforcement
Evidence of employee communications is often crucial to understanding the operation and potential impact of infringing conduct. Employee communications may reveal the reasons for particular commercial decisions and how collusion informed decision-making within a company. This is relevant not only to the detection of infringements in public enforcement, but also to private enforcement, including the establishment of causation and harm. As the Court of Appeal recognised in Royal Mail v DAF, where a defendant elects not to adduce evidence from individuals able to explain how the cartel operated and how cartel information was used, that may support adverse inferences when assessing the cartel’s effect on prices.[2]
Wider context: bid rigging in public procurement
The inspection of M&J Group’s premises was carried out in the context of the CMA’s investigation of construction companies for bid-rigging, in relation to contracts for both private and public sector work. This is an industry at high risk of cartel activity, where the CMA is particularly active and has, since 2014, imposed more than £129 million in fines on 31 companies, director disqualifications and criminal sanctions. These infringements have a serious impact - it is estimated that they lead to overpayments of £1-3 billion annually for taxpayer funded projects. As such, the CMA’s focus on deterring companies and individuals from concealing necessary evidence or causing delays to investigations is both welcome and unsurprising.
Footnotes