Overview
On September 24, 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced the first ever civil penalties imposed on individual employees for concealing evidence during an unannounced inspection as part of an investigation (also known as a 'dawn raid').
While the fine on the company was low by international standards (at just £25,000), the fact that the CMA fined individual staff members is significant. The case underlines the risks to both companies and their employees of mishandling dawn raids and the importance of regular dawn raid training. Further, a new 'turnover-based' approach to calculating these types of fines, which has been in place in the UK since 2025, means that companies engaging in similar misconduct in future dawn raids will likely face much harsher financial penalties.
The Investigation
On December 10, 2024, the CMA opened a Chapter I inquiry under the UK's Competition Act 1998 into suspected bid-rigging in roofing and construction work for schools. It conducted unannounced searches (known as 'dawn raids') at M&J Group (Construction & Roofing) Ltd and other premises. So far 12 businesses, including M&J, have been identified as under investigation, relating to tenders for both public- and private-sector work. No statement of objections has yet been issued and no infringement has been established.
The Fines
The fines concerned conduct by M&J employees during the dawn raid. A Director of M&J instructed the office manager to remove his work phone and papers, then twice denied possessing a phone when the CMA officers asked him. The items were returned later that afternoon.
Notices issued by the CMA on September 17 and published September 24 fined M&J £25,000, the Director £20,000 and the Office Manager £5,000. The CMA called the conduct “deliberate and flagrant” but credited the return and self-report as mitigation (decision, paras 28–33, 82–84, pp 8–9, 16–17). The penalty notices concern M&J's raid conduct, not the cartel allegation (decision, paras 23–25, pp 7–8).
Out With the Old and In With the New Approach to Fines
At the time of the misconduct, CA98 s 40A(1) permitted the CMA to levy a civil penalty on individuals for failure without reasonable excuse to meet an inspection requirement under ss 28 or 28A, with the total amount capped at £30,000 (decision, para 17, p 6).
Employees could in principle also face criminal prosecution, were they found to have intentionally obstructed CMA officers (s 42(7)); engaged in intentional or reckless destruction, disposal, falsification or concealment of relevant information (s 43(1)–(2)); or knowingly or recklessly supplied materially false or misleading information (s 44(1), (3)). Each of these offences is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment on indictment.
Since January 1, 2025, Section 40ZE authorises the CMA to issue civil penalties for failing to preserve relevant documents without reasonable excuse, as well as obstruction, document concealment, destruction, falsification and materially false or misleading information. The cap on companies for breaches of these rules under s 40A(3A) was increased from £30,000 to up to 1% of turnover and 5% of daily turnover per day, while caps on fines imposed on individuals remain at £30,000 fixed or £15,000 daily (s 40A(3)).
By way of example, given M&J's turnover was £40.76 million in 2025, this would have given a hypothetical ceiling to the company's fine under the new regime of £400,000.
European Comparisons
The UK decision follows other European jurisdictions, which have levied significant fines on companies for misconduct during dawn raids.
For example, France's Competition Authority fined Loste €900,000 for misleading raid answers. That decision is under appeal. Finland's Market Court endorsed a fine on Attendo of €1.5 million (reduced from an original fine of €4.4 million) in 2025 after an employee deleted WhatsApp messages and call records.
The European Commission has to date levied the largest fine for misconduct during a dawn raid, imposing a €38 million fine on E.ON in 2008 for a broken seal during an inspection (which was subsequently upheld on appeal). The Commission later imposed €8m on Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des Eaux for another seal breach. The Commission has also recently fined a company, IFF, €15.9 million in 2024 for deleting WhatsApp messages exchanged with a competitor during a dawn raid.
Key Takeaway
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of training all staff members, including in particular managers and IT personnel, in best practice for responding to dawn raids by competition authorities and other regulators. In light of European comparisons and the UK's new fining regime, it is clear that conduct of a similar nature in future dawn raids will likely attract much harsher penalties on the companies concerned. The case also highlights the exposure of individual employees to personal liability for fines in the UK, which differs from most other jurisdictions where fines can usually only be levied on the companies concerned.
If you would like to discuss this case or arrange for complimentary dawn raid preparedness training, please do not hesitate to contact the author – Ronan Scanlan – or your usual Steptoe contact.
