Skip to main content

Is New York State Using a "Trust, Don't Verify" Approach Regarding Convicted Felon CPAs?

New York State Catches Up to Convicted Felon and Licensed CPA after 15 Years

Fifteen years after pleading guilty to one of the largest securities frauds of its time, the New York State Education Department - Office of Professional Discipline has finally caught up with a convicted felon who admits to committing his crimes with a "cold, dark, and heartless soul." That convicted felon is me!

After pleading guilty to three felonies in late 1992, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the New York State Society of CPA's (NYSSCPA) booted me from their respective professional organizations. They informed me that they were referring my case to the New York State Education Department - Office of Professional Discipline, to have my license revoked. I knew that NY State automatically revoked CPA licenses for convicted felons. Since I believed that I was losing my license anyway, I simply let my registration to practice public accounting expire to put the situation behind me. In any case, I thought that my failure to re-register my license would result in it being revoked.

After I let my registration expire, I had no contact with NY State. I believed that NY State knew about my criminal record or at least that my license had expired upon my failure to re-register it. I assumed that I was no longer a CPA. I have since referred to myself as a former CPA in my fraud presentations. My web site refers to me as a former CPA, too.

A few years later, NY State published an on-line database of licensed CPAs. I found out that I was still a licensed CPA but not registered to practice public accounting! Since my registration to practice public accounting expired, I was considered an "inactive" but licensed CPA. In other states, if you fail to register your license, you lose it. However, I later found out that in New York a failure to register your license puts you on inactive status and does not revoke your license.

It turns out that the AICPA and/or the NYSSCPA either did not refer my criminal record to the New York State Education Department or if they did make a referral, New York State failed to act on the matter. Whether or not the AICPA or the NYSSCPA made a referral, it appears that NY State had no record of my criminal conviction. NY State never revoked my license.

Now that I found out that I was still a licensed but "inactive" CPA, I had openly disclosed my situation to most people in the profession that I had contact with and in most of my
fraud presentations during the last several years to thousands of people. I invited people in the audience to rat me out to NY State. I wanted to see how long it would take for NY State to finally get around to actually revoking my license.

On Monday, October 22, 2007, I received an email from Lewis Antine at the NYS Education Department -- Office of Professional Discipline, asking me to contact him concerning my CPA license.

I immediately called Mr. Antine from the NY State Education Department anticipating the subject matter of the call. I asked him, "What took them so long to get to me?"

A person attending one of my fraud presentations had informed his office that I told an audience the fact that NY State had never disciplined me nor revoked my CPA license, despite the fact that I have a criminal record and that the AICPA and NYSSCPA booted me. He seemed to be quite embarrassed about the episode and the fact that NY State was the last to know that I was still a licensed but "inactive" CPA despite my criminal record.

Mr. Antine acknowledged the fact that I never publicly held myself out as a CPA by always calling myself a "former CPA" in public, such as during my fraud presentations, and on my web site. As a convicted felon, I never used my CPA credentials in private industry or anywhere else. I was publicly open about the fact that I did not face any disciplinary action to revoke my license. Mr. Antine was thankful to me for my public candor about the matter.

The problem of criminal CPAs and a solution

I hope that NY State has not adopted a "trust, don't verify" approach honor system regarding disclosure of criminal records for CPAs. There is a big hole in the system for screening out CPAs with criminal records. After meeting certain educational requirements, passing the CPA exam, and meeting experience requirements a qualified person can apply for a CPA license and register to practice public accounting. When a person applies for a CPA license, registers to practice public accounting, renews his registration to practice, or re-activates it after letting his registration lapse, he is required to disclose any criminal record.

The NY State Education Department should have access to criminal record information and conduct periodic checks for criminal records with the FBI. If anyone is naïve enough to believe that many criminals would disclose their criminal records, they are fooling themselves, since such a disclosure would red flag their licenses for revocation. A person convicted of a felony after obtaining a CPA license can simply let their registration to practice lapse and still be a licensed but inactive CPA, so long as NY State fails to institute a disciplinary proceeding to revoke his license. While such a criminal cannot practice public accounting, he can still call himself a CPA in working in private industry (something that I did not do).

I asked Mr. Antine if there was anything NY State needed from me. He asked me for copies of my criminal record, since NY State could not easily obtain any copies. I guess as a convicted felon, the least I could do is to help NY State prove that I am actually a criminal, so that they can discipline me and finally revoke my license.

As Herb Greenberg would say, "The beat goes on" and as Jeff Matthews would say, "I am not making this up."

Written by:

Sam E. Antar (former Crazy Eddie CFO & convicted felon)


NJ Citizen said…
I filed a complaint against a New Jersey licensed CPA, one with the New Jersey board of accountancy and the other with the AICPA. This CPA/Director has committed fraud, and was also assisting others in committing fraud. I sent my letter and supporting documents (backed up by professional reports by a forensic accountant) to the board and the AICPA, I was contacted by the Board, I spoke with a Deputy Attorney General, she never asked any questions regarding the information I sent, but seemed more inclined to discourage me from filing my complaint.  The AICPA advised me that it’s in the State’s hands and they will wait on the State’s decision.   
Considering what this CPA has done, it somewhat baffling to me that this person continues to hold a license and is still a member of the AICPA, also continues to work for a well respected Accounting firm in the Sate of New Jersey.  It is unclear to me why the Board has not taken any action, knowing that there is so much proof and then never following up with an investigation that would further prove what I had sent them.

The board says “As a unit of the Division of Consumer Affairs, the New Jersey State Board of Accountancy (Board) takes its responsibilities seriously” Those words are meaningless, both of these organizations are a joke.

Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had … CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…