EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

08.31.08

Charles Pancerzewski and Microsoft Fraud Revisited (Updated)

Posted in Bill Gates, Courtroom, Deception, Finance, Fraud, Law, Microsoft, SCO, Steve Ballmer at 1:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The man who snitched on Microsoft and became a millionaire

Background

According to many reports such as this recent one (or this and this older one, with a photo of the man here), Microsoft’s Charles Pancerzewski retired and became a collector some time after Microsoft had paid him millions of dollars not to sue Microsoft over systematic fraud, for which there was enough evidence according to the judge. Charlie later testified before the SEC and was he employed by in least one other industry before retiring.

Man in moneyThis post, however, is now about Charlie, who is also listed here. His personal life is quite irrelevant compared to the Pandora’s box which he opened. It has potentially huge implications.

We have taken a good look around and studied events which span about 6 years (1996-2002). Here are some of the articles that we found. You can read further and explore more deeply, but we only highlight snippets. We also show that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are allegedly involved in a direct way.

The First Settlement

The following old article explains how Microsoft escapes tax. It’s an issue which was explored here several times before, e.g. in [1, 2]. Pay special attention to this:

We know that the SEC became interested after Microsoft settled with a whistleblower former employee, who funnily enough then shut up, and because Microsoft admitted that the SEC has started a “non-public investigation into the company’s accounting reserve practices”. This investigation was spurred following disclosures related to a wrongful dismissal claim brought by Microsoft’s former (internal) general auditor, Charles Pancerzewski, who had been offered a “resign or be fired” choice in 1996 after he claimed accounting practice irregularities. Pancerzewski complained that Microsoft used its reserves to pad its earnings in lean quarters, with the result that Microsoft misreported its earnings.

Microsoft’s “unearned revenue from prior periods” in its cash flow statement shows that Microsoft recognised $5.6 billion in fiscal 2000, up from $4.526 billion in fiscal 1999 and $1.798 billion in fiscal 1998. Pancerzewski filed suit under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, resulting in Microsoft’s records being subpoenaed. The judge decided there was enough evidence to go to trial on the whistleblower charges, but Microsoft quietly settled out of court, with Pancerzewski apparently accepting $4 million in compensation, a gagging agreement, and the sealing of the court record.

It is interesting to recall that pundit Robert Cringely noted a conversation he had with former Microsoft CFO Frank Gaudette. When asked what signs there would be as to when Microsoft stock should be sold, Gaudette said: “Watch for any changes in our accounting. If I need, I can start depreciating the software and maintain earnings growth for years on flat revenue.” Although Microsoft hasn’t yet reached the point of doing this, it is highly significant that a major change in the accounting system was introduced recently, especially as lacklustre results are expected for the current Q1.

Steve Ballmer is claimed to have been personally involved, but evidence may not be sufficient.

A lengthy anecdote about accounting irregularities exposed by whistleblower Charles Pancerzewski concludes weakly, “Microsoft paid over $4 million to make Pancerzewski go away, an amount that presumably wouldn’t be paid out without the Office of the President, the trio to which Ballmer belonged, signing off on it.”

Sadly, part of the settlement involved sealing (maybe destruction) of evidence. We saw this in the past, just before SCO attacked. What was Microsoft so afraid of if it claims to be innocent?

One strategy that Microsoft has employed in the past is paying for the silence of people and companies. Charles Pancerzewski, formerly Microsoft’s chief auditor, became aware of Microsoft’s practice of carrying earnings from one accounting period into another, known as “managing earnings”. This practice smoothes reported revenue streams, increases share value, and misleads employees and shareholders. In addition to being unethical, it’s also illegal under U.S. Securities Law and violates Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (Fink). Mr. Pancerzewski claims he was forced to retire, for raising the issue of deferred earnings with Microsoft executives, thereby making plausible deniability more difficult for said executives. He has since sued Microsoft, who responded by settling out of court, but also sealing the records to prevent public disclosure (Fink).

Here are some more details.

In his lawsuit, Pancerzewski cited Microsoft’s use of deferred revenue as a potential means of creating such a reserve, and brought in William Simpson, a former SEC accountant in its Los Angeles office and now a consultant, to testify that Microsoft did indeed manage its earnings through such means, according to court documents. Microsoft convinced the court to seal Simpson’s testimony from public view, and both he and Pancerzewski declined to be interviewed for this article.

Remember that Microsoft is claimed to have lost $18 billion in 1998. There is a lot that the company refuses to tell the public.

More unique information can be here:

When a Microsoft auditor alerted chief operating officer Bob Herbold and then-chief financial officer Mike Brown to the practice, he was urged to destroy copies of his report and ultimately was fired, court papers on file in Seattle federal court alleged.

[...]

But a surviving transcript of a June 1998 hearing quotes Pancerzewski’s attorney as saying that Microsoft “systematically and deliberately excluded hundreds of millions of dollars from their publicly reported financial statements in order to smooth income and conceal volatility.” The practice violated the Securities Exchange Act, the Federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and European tax laws, argued Pete Vial, Pancerzewski’s lawyer.

Vial went on to allege that Brown, then Microsoft’s CFO, wrote in an email to chief executive Bill Gates that “we should do all we can to smooth our earnings and keep a steady state earnings model.” After Pancerzewski reported the alleged reserves to Herbold and Brown, “what they did was isolate him, demote, him,” Vial argued.

It therefore seems as though 'charitable' Chairman Gates endorsed these practices.

Nicholas Petreley once alluded to this incident too.

My suspicions regarding Microsoft stock are partly due to year-2000 issues and problems delivering Windows 2000. But I’m also concerned about the recent allegations of securities fraud in a wrongful termination suit by former Microsoft Chief of Internal Audits Charles Pancerzewski. Pancerzewski claims to have discovered that Microsoft violated Securities and Exchange Commission regulations in order to show steady net revenue growth every quarter.

And lastly:

He claimed to have been forced to resign in 1995 after reporting his suspicions about Microsoft bookkeeping to CFO Mike Brown and COO Bob Herbold.

[...]

But court records of the case show Pancerzewski had claimed he’d been ordered to destroy a consultant’s report about potential tax liabilities in Europe, and that he’d found that Microsoft was controlling the level of reported income by switching money back and forth from reserves. Much simplified, this procedure involves putting money into reserves in good times, and transferring it back into reported income when times are hard. It’s used to keep earnings apparently growing smoothly, and it is illegal, under SEC rules.

Destroying reports, switching money back and forth, escaping tax…. is this the ‘honuorable’ company we are asked to respect [1, 2, 3]?

The SEC’s Response (Second Settlement)

There are actually a lot more articles about those later events (unlike the former), which mostly revolve around the toothless SEC.

Here is one report.

Microsoft’s earnings may become less predictable if the world’s largest software maker is forced to change accounting practices because of a review by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, analysts said.

From CNN:

The Wall Street Journal article, dated Jan. 14, 1999, concerned a wrongful-discharge lawsuit filed by Charles Pancerzewski, a former Microsoft internal auditor. Pancerzewski charged the company with manipulating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue reserves to make its profits appear more stable.

Also from CNN:

The paper cites an e-mail, disclosed during Pancerzewski’s suit, that former Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Michael Brown sent to company Chairman Bill Gates in which he said, “I believe we should do all we can to smooth our earnings and keep a steady state earnings model.”

Information control is showing.

“It is really inappropriate for us to comment further,” he added, noting that the review would have “no material impact on our business or financial condition.”

Maffei said he learned of the SEC investigation “several months ago.” The company chose to disclose the existence of the investigation now due to the fact that it had heard of rumors circulating about such a probe and wanted to be sure the information was disseminated to the financial community and investors in an accurate fashion, according to a Microsoft spokeswoman.

Let’s fly a couple of years into the future.

Interestingly, Microsoft claims not to have broken the rules. If so, what’s the meaning of the article “Microsoft Agrees To Refrain From Accounting Violations in SEC Settlement”? This headline suggests that Microsoft acknowledges violation. If any of its past promises are something to rely on, it’s likely that nothing has changed since.

Microsoft has agreed to refrain from accounting violations to settle federal regulators’ allegations that it misrepresented its financial performance, the government announced Monday.

Under a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the software giant neither admitted to nor denied wrongdoing. No fine was imposed.

The SEC alleged that Microsoft’s accounting practices from July 1994 through June 1998 caused its income to be substantially misstated.

This article also available from here (Associated Press, thus distributed widely). The statements above say it all. Microsoft did not deny fraud and it escaped without harm.

Given that Microsoft now employs a young man from the paper industry as its CFO (more here), the last sentence below rings a bell of sounds an alarm.

The lawsuit, filed last year by Mukilteo City Councilman Charles Pancerzewski, alleges that he was forced to resign as Microsoft’s general auditor in January 1996 after working for the company’s internal auditing department for more than four years. The suit claims that a “significantly younger man” with little auditing experience was picked to replace Pancerzewski, who was finally forced out because he discovered Microsoft might have been violating government regulations. Once Pancerzewski left the company he was replaced by the younger man, who his attorneys believe was “less prone to raise issues of possible legal improprieties which could threaten or embarrass Microsoft or its management.

From the Microsoft-influenced New York Times:

Industry experts said the S.E.C. investigation could be part of its effort to restrain ”cookie jar” accounting, which can smooth over differences between strong and weak quarters.

[...]

The S.E.C. and its chairman, Arthur Levitt, have begun cracking down on what they consider earnings manipulation by companies. The issue ”certainly has Mr. Levitt’s attention,” said Peter H. Knutson, an associate professor emeritus of accounting at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

[...]

Microsoft has set aside about $4 billion in what it calls ”unearned revenues” as a result of the way it sells both its Windows operating system products and its Office suite of software applications. The company often sets revenue aside to account for upgrades and components that may be delivered later during the product life. It also sells some products on a license or subscription basis, and sets revenue aside there as well.

But Microsoft also sets aside non-public reserves for bad debts, returned products and other related business contingencies, and it is possible that the S.E.C. investigation is related to those practices.

[...]

The company has still not made enough information public to provide analysts with detailed information on the profitability of its MSN Internet business, Mr. Galvin said, adding, ”There’s still room for them to obfuscate.”

Watch this one, which alleges the CFO was personally involved

“I can confirm that the SEC has contacted Charlie Pancerzewski and that Charlie has cooperated with the SEC,” McNaul said.

That cooperation has included being interviewed by investigators and handing over a substantial volume of records about Microsoft’s practices, McNaul said.

[...]

“The CFO to whom Charlie was reporting his concerns about illegality was the biggest advocate for the very illegality that was going on,” Vial argued in court a year ago.

So, at the end, another unknown settlement was reached and Microsoft was not punished. Could Microsoft’s relationship with the SEC be similar to that which it enjoys with the Department of 'Justice'?

Update: Rex Ballard has added some valuable information and it’s quoted below verbatim.


Message-ID: <a12b7776-c665-4db3-a4a9-9d7e263d4925@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
From: Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ballmer Maybe Peronally Involved in Microsoft’s Fraud, Evidence Destroyed
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:41:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Aug 31, 8:15 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro…@schestowitz.com>
wrote:

> Sadly, part of the settlement was destruction of evidence. What was Microsoft
> so afraid of if it claims to be innocent? it later settled with the SEC, too.

This is by no means a NEW settlement tactic for Microsoft. Most
settlements involve a number of agreements including
1- court seal of all evidence presented – so that it can’t be used
against them in other civil or criminal cases.
2- immunity from future prosecution, including a declaration that no
guilt is admitted
and that any wrongs ruled by the judge to be violations of law be
dropped, in effect
declaring microsoft and it’s people to be innocent of any
criminal acts.
3. Agreement not to disclose any information related to the case.
Even in the event
of a federal court subpoena, if the plaintiff talks, they lose
the money.
4 Agreement to destroy all exhibits as soon as applicable statutes
permit.
5 Purge of all public records, wherever possible, for example
removal from web sites.
6 On-line publications can be asked to purge the records (but are
not required to do so)
7 Court seals that prevent republication of the exhibits by the
court or the plaintiffs.

One of the clever strategies of Combs versus Microsoft was that all
exhibits, and transcripts of key witnesses and judicial decisions were
published while they were still in public domain. This allowed
interested parties to capture and circulate all of the evidence BEFORE
court seals “Locked up” the official transcripts and exhibits.

We have seen similar terms in cases where public disclosure of the
settlement is required by state or federal law.

> Whistleblower settles after Microsoft SEC fraud claim

> ,—-[ Quote ]
> | He claimed to have been forced to resign in 1995 after reporting his
> | suspicions about Microsoft bookkeeping to CFO Mike Brown and COO Bob Herbold.
> | [...]

The interesting part of this case is that even though the central
issue of the case was whether or not Microsoft terminated the
plaintiff BECAUSE he was a whistle blower or not, a bunch of secondary
evidence describing what the plaintiff had found, why he thought it
might be illegal, and how he found it, were also presented (even
though those were not critical elements of the case).

During the settlement process, not only were the reasons for
terminations put under seal, but ALL documents related to the the SEC
violations were also presented. In the settlement all of those
records were put under seal, the court gave immunity, and the
settlement allowed both Microsoft and the plaintiff to distroy the
records.

It almost looks to me like the plaintiff was actually working for
Microsoft and EARNED is $4 million by taking a bunch of very
incriminating evidence out of play. Whether the plaintiff KNEW that
was what was happening or not is probably up for speculation, but it
is clear that Microsoft played him perfectly. He pointed out the
obvious, and became the perfect pawn to get the very evidence he
threatened to disclosed taken out of play.

The problem for prosecutors is that none of the evidence in the case
can even be used to establish probable cause, since it would be poison
fruits, which means that Microsoft executives effectively gave
themselves immunity by firing this guy in such a way that he was sure
to fight back. I wouldn’t be surprised if Microsoft even had some of
their people put the idea of suing Microsoft into his head, and maybe
even gave him the name of a good lawyer who would be sure to put
everything into the court record.

> | But court records of the case show Pancerzewski had claimed he’d been ordered
> | to destroy a consultant’s report about potential tax liabilities in Europe,
> | and that he’d found that Microsoft was controlling the level of reported
> | income by switching money back and forth from reserves. Much simplified, this
> | procedure involves putting money into reserves in good times, and
> | transferring it back into reported income when times are hard. It’s used to
> | keep earnings apparently growing smoothly, and it is illegal, under SEC
> rules.

Yes, and we’ve seen clear evidence of Microsoft doing that since the
release of Vista. Microsoft has been financing huge quantities of
Vista sales and flooring, then writing it down in subsequent quarters
as bad debt. It lets them keep revenues up while profits go down from
their typical 80% to as low as 30% due to bad receivables.

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/09/whistleblower_settles_after_m…

[snip other fine references]


Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Openwashing Report on Open Networking Foundation (ONF): When Open Source Means Collaboration Among Giant Spying Companies

    Massive telecommunications oligopolies (telecoms) are being described as ethical and responsible by means of openwashing; they even have their own front groups for that obscene mischaracterisation and ONF is one of those



  2. 'Open Source' You Cannot Run Without Renting or 'Licensing' Windows From Microsoft

    When so-called ‘open source’ programs strictly require Vista 10 (or similar) to run, how open are they really and does that not redefine the nature of Open Source while betraying everything Free/libre software stands for?



  3. All About Control: Microsoft is Not Open Source But an Open Source Censor/Spy and GitHub/LinkedIn/Skype Are Its Proprietary Censorship/Surveillance Tools

    All the big companies which Microsoft bought in recent years are proprietary software and all of the company’s big products remain proprietary software; all that “Open Source” is to Microsoft is “something to control and censor“



  4. The Sad State of GNU/Linux News Sites

    The ‘media coup’ of corporate giants (that claim to be 'friends') means that history of GNU/Linux is being distorted and lied about; it also explains prevalent lies such as "Microsoft loves Linux" and denial of GNU/Free software



  5. EPO President Along With Bristows, Managing IP and Other Team UPC Boosters Are Lobbying for Software Patents in Clear and Direct Violation of the EPC

    A calm interpretation of the latest wave of lobbying from litigation professionals, i.e. people who profit when there are lots of patent disputes and even expensive lawsuits which may be totally frivolous (for example, based upon fake patents that aren't EPC-compliant)



  6. Links 15/9/2019: Radeon ROCm 2.7.2, KDE Frameworks 5.62.0, PineTime and Bison 3.4.2

    Links for the day



  7. Illegal/Invalid Patents (IPs) Have Become the 'Norm' in Europe

    Normalisation of invalid patents (granted by the EPO in defiance of the EPC) is a serious problem, but patent law firms continue to exploit that while this whole 'patent bubble' lasts (apparently the number of applications will continue to decrease because the perceived value of European Patents diminishes)



  8. Patent Maximalists, Orbiting the European Patent Office, Work to 'Globalise' a System of Monopolies on Everything

    Monopolies on just about everything are being granted in defiance of the EPC and there are those looking to make this violation ‘unitary’, even worldwide if not just EU-wide



  9. Unitary Patent (UPC) Promotion by Team Battistelli 'Metastasising' in Private Law Firms

    The EPO's Albert Keyack (Team Battistelli) is now in Team UPC as Vice President of Kilburn & Strode LLP; he already fills the media with lies about the UPC, as one can expect



  10. Microsoft Targets GNU/Linux Advocates With Phony Charm Offensives and Fake 'Love'

    The ways Microsoft depresses GNU/Linux advocacy and discourages enthusiasm for Software Freedom is not hard to see; it's worth considering and understanding some of these tactics (mostly assimilation-centric and love-themed), which can otherwise go unnoticed



  11. Proprietary Software Giants Tell Open Source 'Communities' That Proprietary Software Giants Are 'Friends'

    The openwashing services of the so-called 'Linux' Foundation are working; companies that are inherently against Open Source are being called "Open" and some people are willing to swallow this bait (so-called 'compromise' which is actually surrender to proprietary software regimes)



  12. Microsoft Pays the Linux Foundation for Academy Software Foundation, Which the Linux Foundation is Outsourcing to Microsoft

    Microsoft has just bought some more seats and more control over Free/Open Source software; all it had to do was shell out some 'slush funds'



  13. Links 14/9/2019: SUSE CaaS Platform, Huawei Laptops With GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  14. Links 13/9/2019: Catfish 1.4.10, GNOME Firmware 3.34.0 Release

    Links for the day



  15. Links 12/9/2019: GNU/Linux at Huawei, GNOME 3.34 Released

    Links for the day



  16. Links 12/9/2019: Manjaro 18.1 and KaOS 2019.09 Releases

    Links for the day



  17. EPO: Give Us Low-Quality Patent Applications, Patent Trolls Have Use for Those

    What good is the EPC when the EPO feels free to ignore it and nobody holds the EPO accountable for it? At the moment we're living in a post-EPC Europe where the only thing that counts is co-called 'products' (i.e. quantity, not quality).



  18. Coverage for Sponsors: What the Linux Foundation Does is Indistinguishable From Marketing Agencies' Functions

    The marketing agency that controls the name "Linux" is hardly showing any interest in technology or in journalism; it's just buying media coverage for sponsors and this is what it boils down to for the most part (at great expense)



  19. Watch Out, Linus Torvalds: Microsoft Bought Tons of Git Repositories and Now It Goes After Linux

    Microsoft reminds us how E.E.E. tactics work; Microsoft is just hijacking its competition and misleading the market (claiming the competition to be its own, having "extended" it Microsoft's way with proprietary code)



  20. Links 11/9/2019: Acer in LVFS, RawTherapee 5.7 and Qt 5.12.5 Released

    Links for the day



  21. Linux Foundation Inc. Buys Press About Itself and Media Coverage for Sponsors

    Sponsoring so-called ‘news’ sites is bad enough; it is even worse when such media then covers you and your sponsors, such as Snyk (a Linux Foundation sponsor/member, fancier word for client)



  22. Links 11/9/2019: Django 3.0 Alpha, Sunsetting Python 2

    Links for the day



  23. Web Site Called Linux.com Still Exists Only or Mostly to Promote Anti-Linux Firms and Openwashing

    As the Linux Foundation transitions into the Public Relations (PR) industry/domain we should accept if not expect Linux.com to become an extension of PR business models; the old Linux.com is long gone (all staff fired)



  24. Links 10/9/2019: Krita 4.2.6, Ubuntu 19.10 to Boot Faster

    Links for the day



  25. What the Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin Really Thinks of Desktop/Laptop GNU/Linux

    Interesting words from Ken Starks resonate well with what we nowadays see in the so-called 'Linux' Foundation, whose dedication to Linux is like that of a circus to a monkeys' sideshow



  26. Links 10/9/2019: Kate Planning and GnuCash 3.7

    Links for the day



  27. The Sad Truth That Linux Foundation Staff is Against GPL/Copyleft and Sometimes Against Linux (Unless It's Run Under Vista 10)

    The Linux Foundation works for whoever pays the Linux Foundation and sadly that usually means companies that aren’t dedicated to Linux, to Software Freedom or even to simple truths and to the Rule of Law



  28. Microsoft Uses the Word “Linux” to Promote Privacy-Infringing Proprietary Software and Spread FUD

    The discussion about “Linux” is being saturated if not replaced by misinformation and marketing of Linux’s competition — owing largely to googlebombing tactics that the Linux Foundation participates in rather than tackle



  29. Patent Charlatans and Frauds Are Doing a Disservice to Europe and to Europe's Patent System

    Tax evasion and UPC lies aren’t going to help the integrity of the patent system; au contraire — those are becoming an existential threat to the system being exploited by law firms (and accountants)



  30. The European Patent Convention (“EPC”) Does Not Allow Patenting of Life Itself

    Unless the underlying rules are respected and Europe's largest patent office actually follows the laws it's governed by, Europe's patent system won't promote innovation; the European Patent Office's decision on Alexion (patent application 3124029 rejected) is good news


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts