Computer associates backdating

He flew up the ladder at CA, getting named COO in 1994 and CEO in 2000.

According to a New York Times story at the time of the Islanders sale, Computer Associates was the third largest software company in the world and raking in over billion in revenues. 2 man and was on Forbes list of America's 40 Richest Under 40. Upon buying into the exclusive fraternity of pro sports owners, both men were folksy and attributed their success to good ol' fashioned hard work and gumption: They both said their mothers reacted like typical immigrant moms at their latest endeavor. Wang said she worried her son would be spreading himself a little too thin. Kumar told her son he should be saving for his children's education and shouldn't be spending so much.

CALENDAR MAN Two years later, Kumar, CA executive vice president Stephen Richards and five other executives were indicted for securities fraud and obstruction of justice. The second part charges Kumar and Richards with obstruction of justice for lying to the FBI during the investigation and committing perjury while testifying to the SEC in 2003.

The indictment charged Kumar with being the ringleader of a scheme to backdate contracts to claim revenues in previous quarters. On or about April 8, 2000, at approximately a.m., KUMAR sent an e-mail to Sales Executive #3 and RICHARDS which read: "Mr. The indictment says Kumar lied about the backdating practices going on at Computer Associates and what he knew about it, and willfully instructed CA's legal team to do the same.

For example, on or about October 4, 1999, a senior CA sales executive ("Sales Executive #1"), acting on the specific instructions of the defendants SANJAY KUMAR and STEPHEN RICHARDS, finalized a license agreement by which a CA customer ("Customer #2") agreed to pay CA approximately 6 million. Kumar and Richards initially pleaded not guilty, but changed to a guilty plea in April 2006. From his cell in 2008, to the surprise of exactly no one, Kumar filed an appeal that placed the crimes squarely on Wang and other CA executives, as well as "friend to the Islanders" and former U. Kumar, however, claims that he told this story to CA's internal investigators in 20 but that his version of the events never made it into the Special Litigation Committee's report that was made public, which is kind of odd considering it accused Wang of fraudulent accounting and urged legal action.

The written license agreement fraudulently made it appear that the agreement had been finalized and signed on September 30, 1999. In November of that year, Kumar was sentenced to a dozen years in the cooler and later handed a bill for 0 million in restitution payments to investors and shareholders that lost money thanks to his shenanigans. "Fraud pervaded the entire CA organization at every level, and was embedded in CA's culture, as instilled by Mr.

In 2006, Kumar plead guilty and was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison and ordered to pay almost 0 million in restitution.

And you thought Rick Di Pietro had a rough time in Uniondale. attorney called Kumar's creative accounting "the most brazen and comprehensive obstruction in the modern era of corporate crime." Kumar moved .2 billion - with a "b" - around Computer Associates' books, lined his own pockets with a few hundred million and his garage with at least two Ferraris.

District Court for the Eastern District of New York, who sentenced Zar to seven months in federal prison on related criminal charges in 2007.

Reporter Don Tennant, who doggedly followed the case for Computer World and IT Business Edge, is blunt in his assessment that Wang and Kumar should be still be working together... And that Kumar, despite needing to pay for his massive mistakes, was simply playing Otis to Wang's Lex Luthor.

So if Tennant's theory is correct, how is Wang still living the high-life and swinging high-profile business deals?

Tennant says it's the lack of paper trail and a generously short statute of limitations: It's widely understood that the reason Wang managed to get away with throwing Kumar under the bus and professing his innocence was simply that he was smart enough to avoid using e-mail and voicemail.

As a result, investigators were unable to produce any physical evidence of his involvement in the accounting fraud that destroyed the lives of too many people, and that nearly destroyed his company.

Leave a Reply