Phone going mobile results in landmark CMA fines on construction company staff for obstructing a dawn raid

On 24 September 2026, the CMA fined construction firm M&J Group (Construction & Roofing) Ltd (M&J) and two staff members a total of £50,000 for hiding a phone and documents during a bid-rigging probe. This is the first time the CMA has fined individuals for concealing evidence. 

The CMA issued its fine after finding that M&J and two staff members had, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with certain investigatory requirements during the CMA’s execution of a warrant issued by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in relation to M&J’s business premises. This occurred in the context of an investigation by the CMA into whether 12 construction companies (including M&J) illegally colluded when bidding for certain public and private sector contracts. That investigation remains ongoing, and no findings of infringement have been reached to date. 

Obstruction 

On 10 December 2024, CMA officers dawn-raided M&J’s business premises. Shortly after their arrival, they served a warrant on M&J’s CEO and instructed employees not to obstruct the CMA in exercising its powers. M&J sent an email to all staff setting out instructions not to conceal, delete or destroy documents, not to obstruct inspectors, and not to provide false or misleading information.

M&J’s Estimating Director (the ED) and its Office Manager acted in breach of these instructions. Upon instruction from the ED, the Office Manager removed the ED’s work mobile phone and paperwork from M&J’s business premises, to prevent the evidence from being found by CMA investigators. The ED also falsely told CMA officers that he did not have a work mobile phone. The items were brought back at around 4pm and provided to the CMA. M&J’s legal representatives told the CMA that “staff had panicked and taken relevant material off site”.

Administrative penalties 

Under the Competition Act 1998, the CMA can impose a penalty where it considers that a person has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with investigative requirements imposed on them by a warrant. The CMA concluded that this conduct clearly constituted such a failure. M&J was separately liable for failing to take adequate steps to ensure compliance with the warrant, and because liability for its employees’ acts ultimately rested with it. The CMA therefore imposed the following fines: 

• the ED: £20,000;
• M&J: £25,000; and
• the Office Manager: £5,000.

The Penalty Notices issued relating to the two staff members and M&J set out the CMA’s approach to the factors which underpin its penalty framework¹ and the basis for the CMA’s determination that each fine was "reasonable, appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances". In particular, the Notices pointed to certain factors that supported the imposition of a (higher) penalty in this case.

In mitigation, M&J argued amongst other things that the conduct had no adverse effect on the investigation and the incident should not be regarded as an attempt to gain an advantage over the CMA as the materials were restored to the CMA within hours (as a result of M&J’s actions) and the individuals had acted against M&J’s express instructions. In particular, M&J highlighted that not only did it issue clear written instructions to all staff, which included a prohibition on concealing or destroying evidence, but a hard-copy printout was provided to the ED following the seizure of his laptop and personal mobile phone. M&J argued that this demonstrated “oversight of ED’s conduct”. 

The CMA rejected these arguments, noting that the non-compliance resulted in the CMA diverting resources from its main investigation to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the removal of the documents (including by reviewing relevant CCTV footage and interviewing relevant personnel). The CMA also stated that in the context of an intentional breach of CMA instructions, the actions and state of mind of employees are attributable to their employer. The CMA also noted that the steps taken by M&J were insufficient to ensure that the CMA’s instructions were complied with, and that M&J failed to exercise “sufficient oversight of the M&J premises so as to ensure that its employees could not remove relevant materials and that M&J’s senior management failed to secure the ED’s files (which they knew or ought to have known were likely to be relevant given the ED’s role) or sufficiently supervise the ED’s actions on the day of the inspection”.

The CMA did, however, conclude that imposing the maximum fine possible (£30,000) on M&J or the two staff members was not appropriate because:

• this was a one-off incident rather than a case involving repeated non-compliance and was resolved on the day of the raid;
• M&J had taken steps to prevent non-compliance and self-reported the conduct to the CMA, enabling the materials to be returned within hours; and
• the Office Manager served in an administrative role that was less senior than the ED. The CMA also took account of their likely financial resources, leading to a lower penalty for the Office Manager. 

Commentary

It is notable that had the conduct occurred just one month later, the M&J fine would likely have been significantly higher. The CMA’s ability to issue financial penalties for non-compliance with administrative measures (across a number of its areas of work) was enhanced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) with effect from 1 January 2025. Consequently, the CMA can now impose fines on businesses of up to 1% of annual turnover, 5% of daily turnover, or a combination of both. The maximum penalty for individuals (£30,000) remains unchanged.

Alongside these enhanced fining powers, the CMA’s decision to impose fines in this case may signal a greater willingness on its part to hold both staff and their employers accountable for obstructing investigations. This is the first time the CMA has fined individuals for concealing evidence during a dawn raid. It is also only the second time it has issued a fine against a company for such conduct (Fender was fined £25,000 in 2019 for concealment of evidence). It is therefore particularly notable that the CMA’s press release announcing the fines specifically referenced the new higher statutory cap under the DMCCA and stated that, going forward, businesses that fail to comply with investigative requirements may face higher penalties for non-compliance. The £473,000 penalty recently issued by the CMA to Euro Car Parks for failure to comply with information requests in a consumer protection investigation suggests the CMA means what it says in this regard, but it remains to be seen whether its penalties will approach the levels seen in the EU.

To mitigate this greater risk, businesses should ensure employees are regularly trained on compliance and understand the importance of complying with the instructions of CMA officers during a dawn raid. Additionally - and as this case demonstrates - companies will need to take further steps to actively supervise employees who may be closely connected with the allegations of a breach of competition law. Simply relying on firm-wide emails instructing staff to co-operate and not destroy evidence is unlikely to be sufficient if something does go wrong. The prospect of fines being imposed upon staff themselves should, at least, assist in getting the message across.