This time it's personal: first CMA fines on individuals for concealing evidence during a dawn raid

On 24 September 2026, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued its first civil penalties to individuals, imposing a fine of £20,000 on a member of senior management and £5,000 on an office manager, for concealing evidence during an unannounced inspection of a construction firm in December 2024. The company itself was also fined £25,000.

What you need to know

• The CMA has wide powers to inspect premises (so-called "dawn raids") to obtain information about a suspected infringement of competition law.
• The CMA can fine individuals up to £30,000 for obstructing an investigation. Since January 2025, businesses can be fined up to 1% of annual global turnover, plus daily penalties of up to 5% of daily global turnover.
• Companies should have dawn raid procedures and training in place before a regulator arrives. During an inspection, simply telling employees not to obstruct the CMA is unlikely to be enough. Companies must take adequate steps to prevent non-compliance, including securing relevant devices and supervising key individuals.
• Companies and individuals should expect the CMA to take failures to comply very seriously and to impose penalties where appropriate. Senior managers will be held to a higher standard than more junior staff.

Obstruction of the CMA inspection

In December 2024, the CMA executed a warrant to search the business premises of a construction company, M&J Group, pursuant to its investigatory powers in the Competition Act 1998. The dawn raid was part of the CMA's ongoing investigation into suspected bid rigging by construction companies competing for school building contracts, including those funded by the Department for Education's Condition Improvement Fund.

At the start of the inspection, a senior officer of the company (the Estimating Director) instructed another employee (the Office Manager) to remove his work mobile phone and paperwork from the company's premises, which she did. When CMA officers asked, he twice falsely claimed that he did not have a work mobile phone.

After the company's lawyers intervened, the materials were handed over to the CMA later the same day. The withheld phone was later found to contain significant evidence relating to the suspected cartel, including evidence of the Estimating Director's direct involvement.

Penalties on individuals

The CMA's penalty decisions found that the Estimating Director and the Office Manager had intentionally obstructed its investigation by concealing the relevant materials. The Estimating Director also provided false and misleading information about the existence of his work mobile phone. The CMA did not accept as excuses the Estimating Director's claim that it was a "brief lapse of judgement", nor the fact that the items were returned on the same day.

This is the first time the CMA has exercised its powers to fine individuals up to £30,000 for failing to comply with an investigation.

The Estimating Director's fine reflects:

• the seriousness, significance and flagrancy of the failure to comply with requirements imposed under a warrant;
• that he acted with the specific intention of adversely impacting the CMA's investigation;
• that he sought to obtain a personal advantage by concealing evidence of his direct involvement in the conduct under investigation;
• the risk that the CMA might have lost access to relevant evidence;
• the time and resources wasted by the CMA in investigating the concealment; and
• his seniority, given senior officers are responsible for establishing a culture of compliance.

The Office Manager's lower fine reflects that she was not a senior officer and took account of her financial resources.

Penalty on the company

The company was also fined even though, at the start of the inspection, it had informed all staff, including the two individuals, not to attempt to conceal, delete or destroy documents and not to provide false or misleading information to the CMA inspectors.

The CMA found these steps were insufficient. In particular:

• the company failed to exercise sufficient oversight over its premises to prevent its employees removing relevant materials; and
• the company's senior management team failed to secure the relevant files, which they must or ought to have known were likely to be relevant given the role of the Estimating Director, or to sufficiently supervise his actions on the day of the inspection.

The £25,000 penalty imposed on the company was close to the £30,000 statutory maximum fixed penalty that applied at the time of the inspection. Since January 2025, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has given the CMA enhanced powers to fine businesses based on turnover (see our briefing on the DMCCA's changes to the CMA's investigatory powers).

Author: Laura Carter, Senior Associate

Want to know more?

• Quickguide to dealing with a dawn raid by a UK competition authority
• Quickguide to competition law investigations by UK authorities
• DMCC Act: Key changes to the CMA's investigatory powers