This is the index of my correspondence with Mr. Anthony Vernon of PwC UK


-       request for an answer on the investigation – December 18th, 2002

-       Mr. Vernon’s conclusion – December 30th, 2002

-       my analysis of Mr. Vernon’s conclusion – January 19th, 2003

-       Mr. Vernon’s reopens the case – January 31st, 2003

-       official notification on the first Court date

-       I notify Mr. Vernon about a newspaper article about this case and PwC Romania notification that they consider the house as a “new” house

-       I advise Mr. Vernon of two other newspaper articles dealing with PwC Romania’s abuses in the case of COMTIM’s liquidation which corroborate my accusations

-       I request from Mr. Vernon the delayed conclusion of his investigation

-       Mr. Vernon’s conclusion to the second investigation (please observe the lack of content relative to his first conclusion and the wealth of my accusations and arguments)

-       I send my analysis of Mr. Vernon’s second conclusion to Ms. Kipp, PwC’s Global Ethics Leader.  I conclude that I have seen more objective investigations in Communist Romania

-       Ms. Kipp advises me that PwC does not communicate the details of their investigations to the complainants

-       I advise Ms. Kipp that I have created a Web page dealing with PwC’s red-herring “the unsolved inheritance”

-       Ms. Kipp’s conclusion of this investigation – my complaints were treated seriously and investigated properly… there has been no breach of the firm's ethical code of conduct







go back to the main page




-----Original Message-----

 From:      Szekely, Eugen 

 Sent:      December 18, 2002 11:03 AM

 To:  ''

 Cc:  Eugen - Yahoo (E-mail)

 Subject:   PwC Romania


 Hello Sir,

 I tried again to contact you with regards to the situation in Romania as I

 have not receive from you any reply yet.  Your assistant told me that you

 will be back in the office only next week, time when I will not be

 available.  As my initial contact dates as far back to September, I

 thought a reply from you by the end of the year would be somewhat


 As such, could you please email me a summary of the situation as you see

 it and the your intention or the organization's position relative to this


 My latest news from Romania are not encouraging, so any more further

 delaying of a just conclusion in this case is only detrimental to me.

 Thank you,


 Eugen Szekely

 1 (613) 957-9750




-----Original Message-----


Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:55 AM


Subject: PwC Romania / COMTIM


Memo from Anthony Vernon of PricewaterhouseCoopers


-------------------- Start of message text --------------------


Dear Mr Szekely,


As I explained to you over the telephone, I am in-house counsel for PwC Romania.  I am responding to your initial letter of complaint of 8th September 2002 to Walter Ricciardi at PwC US, and to your subsequent telephone calls and notes to me, on behalf of PwC Romania.  [I have today seen your further letter of complaint to Kieran Poynter, Senior Partner UK firm and, rather than delaying this response to your forst complaint any longer, I propose to provide any additional responses which are appropriate in due course.]


I know that I have not been able to respond to your complaint as quickly as you would have liked but, at PwC, we take complaints about the work of our professionals seriously.  Before responding, I wanted to investigate the circumstances giving rise to your complaint and to ask the relevant questions of the PwC professionals appointed as liquidators of COMTIM ("the

Liquidators") in relation to their dealings with the property which you claimed to have been owned by your grandfather in the years prior to 1950 ("the Property").


I am now satisfied that the Liquidators have acted at all times in relation to the Property in accordance with the relevant Romanian laws and professional rules and regulations.  I think, perhaps, that it is important for you to understand that, however sympathetic the Liquidators may have been to your family's recent history, the Liquidators (like liquidators

everywhere) have a primary duty by law to realise the best value possible out of the bankrupt company's assets in order to facilitate the highest possible distribution of funds for all of the company's creditors and owners.


In the case of the Property, I understand that the Liquidators have actually made important concessions to you and your family regarding ownership.  Even though your petition for rectification of the Timisoara Land Registry was rejected by the Timisoara Lower Court - a decision you intended to appeal - the Liquidators agreed at that point to recognise your claim (and the claim of Szekely Gratian) to be your grandfather's lawful heirs, saving you further time and expense and possible rejection of any appeal.  Furthermore, the Liquidators have not sought to raise again the question of ownership in the subsequent proceedings issued by you under Law 10.


The proceedings under Law 10 were caused, as I understand it, by the Liquidators' response to your notification for the Property to be returned to your family.  The Liquidators pointed out in their response that it could not be in the creditors' best interests for the Property to be vacated immediately, as it was still being used as the base to recover all of the debts of the liquidation.  For the Property to be vacated before the end of the liquidation would mean the further diminution of available assets in the liquidation by finding, and moving to, alternative offices. The second objection was that, as you might expect, the Property has been considerably improved since 1950 and the Liquidators considered reasonably that they would not be discharging the duty they owed to the creditors of COMTIM if they did not require financial compensation for improvements made in the interim period.  As an alternative solution, and given the need for continued occupation, I understand that the Liquidators offered in principle to pay to you and Szekely Gratian the difference between the actual value of the Property and the cost of the improvements albeit they did not put a figure on this as this would have to be subject to a proper professional valuation of the property and the improvements.  I am also informed that the Liquidators were disappointed that their previous actions were met with a demand for US $3 million which, I understand, to be a completely unrealistic value.


I am satisfied therefore that, in their response under Law 10, the Liquidators were acting in accordance with their duties to creditors and that, in reality, they had little alternative, having already made an important concession to you.  Whilst I understand that you were successful in the Lower Town Court with your application under Law 10 to review the Liquidators' response, I am informed that this was subsequently rejected by the appellate Municipal Court and that also, recently, the appeal court of Timisoara has voided your subsequent appeal.  It would seem, therefore, that the local courts also agree with the legitimacy of the actions taken by the Liquidators to date.


Taking into account all of the above, and also the fact that the conduct of the liquidation is supervised by the Courts in any event, I do not believe that there are any grounds to uphold your complaint.  Whilst, having read your initial letter to Walter Ricciardi in full, I, like the Liquidators, have considerable sympathy with your family's predicament, the present position you find yourself in would seem to be a result of the repatriation scheme put in place by the Romanian government and not as a result of any failing or breach of duty by anyone at PwC Romania.


I do hope that this matter can now be resolved between you and the Liquidators without any further anguish being caused to you and your family.


Yours sincerely,

Anthony Vernon

Office of General Counsel



--------------------- End of message text --------------------


This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.


The principal place of business of PricewaterhouseCoopers and its associate partnerships is 1 Embankment Place, London WC2N 6RH where lists of the partners' names are available for inspection. All partners in the associate partnerships are authorised to conduct business as agents of, and all contracts for services to clients are with, PricewaterhouseCoopers. The UK firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers is authorised by the Financial Services Authority for investment business activities. PricewaterhouseCoopers is a member of the world-wide PricewaterhouseCoopers organisation.


PricewaterhouseCoopers may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems. By replying to this e-mail you give your consent to such monitoring.



Visit our website




The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received

this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.




-----Original Message-----
From: Eugen Szekely []
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:09 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: PwC Romania / COMTIM
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential


Dear Mr. Vernon,


Thank you for your reply of December 30th, 2002 to my initial letter of complaint addressed to Mr. Ricciardi on September 8th, 2002.  Through this rebuttal I do not attempt to open a futile dialogue, but I have to address its content as it fails short of the quality and professionalism that I have attached to all PwC organizations – PwC Romania excluded. 


Firstly, I do not know how to take the disclaimer of your quality as in-house counsel to PwC Romania.  If that is intended to show your incapacity to review my complaint in an objective manner I would have expected you to decline any competence on this issue based on your existing conflict of interest during the first communication from Mr. Ricciardi relative to this case.  Not doing so constitutes a misrepresentation on your part and a breach of professional ethic.

As well, I did not expect you to send my message to PwC Romania (as you informed me in our telephone conversation) as this could and did prejudice me further in my case to reclaim my grandfather’s house.  The damage cause by your action needs to be assessed further.


In my initial email, I have presented a very short overview of the case against PwC Romania and I forwarded a link to my public Web page where the details of the case and copies of relevant documents could be found.  I would have expected that any “professional investigation” would look into my claim thoroughly and compare my corroborating documents against those provided by PwC Romania to establish if PwC Romania has acted in accordance to the Romanian laws and PwC’s Code of Conduct.  To my chagrin, the statistics of my Web page show that the relevant pages have not once been accessed in the almost 4 months that this “investigation” lasted!  This helps to explain why your reply is nothing more than an English translation of the current position of PwC Romania.  Being a one sided version I cannot accept it as the result of a “professional investigation”.  I am going to forward this document and my previous correspondence with you to Mr. Kieran Poynter in the UK, Mr. DiPiazza in the US and the Global Ethics Leader Ms. Barbara Kipp as they would be concerned with the “professional and ethical” image that is projected over the whole PwC organization by PwC Romania’s conduct and by your endorsement of their business ethic through your “investigation”.


Below is the detailed analysis of your conclusion versus my accusations against PwC Romania.  I am going to be as detailed as I possibly can in an attempt to make sure that my accusations are not trivialized as contradictable claims in the future.


Where is the title?

Getting into the details of your investigation and in response to your generic claim that the “Liquidators (like liquidators everywhere) have a primary duty by law to realize the best value possible out of the bankrupt company's assets in order to facilitate the highest possible distribution of funds for all of the company's creditors and owners” I have stressed again and again that at the moment of bankruptcy, COMTIM was just the administrator and a tenant in my grandfather’s house as it can be validated from the title deed.  I have to remind you that until 1989, Romania was a Communist country and all corporations, COMTIM included were owned by the Romanian State.  As such, the right of administration in that context meant that the house could be used by COMTIM while the Romanian State was the holder.  That can be seen in the document, where the title to the property is being held by the Romanian State (position 2 in the extended deed – deeds2.jpg) since 1950 when it was taken from my grandfather through the now illegal act of Nationalization.  As in English and in Romanian the words have the same Latin root, it is easy to confirm this by looking at the second (2) position of the title deed for the expression “dreptul de proprietate” meaning the right of property (ownership) and for the expression “dreptul de administrare operativa” meaning the administration and operation right (tenant) in position 4 and 6.  As such, I find very distressing your endorsement of the “right” of PwC Romania to consider my grandfather’s house as an asset in the bankrupt COMTIM and submit it to the liquidation procedure! 


Furthermore you extend such practice globally with the claim that the liquidators in Romania acted “like liquidators everywhere”!  As well, you mentioned that the liquidators “…have a primary duty by law to realize the best value possible…” however it appears that PwC Romania is doing that to the detriment of the law itself! 

Your assertions cast a serious doubt on PwC’s business globally and as such property owners in UK and “everywhere” will have to review their leases to corporations and prepare for PricewaterhouseCoopers to liquidate their property in the event of the bankruptcy of their tenants! 


In the same context of the title deed I want to point out that the first title holder (position 1 in the document deed2.jpg) is Klein Eugen – my grandfather – with the mention in Romanian “cu titlu de cumparare” translated in English with “he purchased the title”.  This invalidates your use of the word “claim” relative to the ownership of the house by my grandfather.  All the above details are in documents that are in the possession of PwC Romania and their legal counsel Mr. Scrieciu, as such should have been validated and included in your investigation.


I would like also to point out the most recent extract from the title deed which has only the relevant, active entries (  This extract as one can plainly discover contains:

- A) For property - position 1, the description of the property

- B) For title - position 2, 6, the title to the Romanian State (Statul Roman) with the “adminis. Operativa” operational administration to S.C. Comtim Holding S.A. Timisoara

- position 7, Szekely Gratian and Szekely Eugen vs the Romanian State (the holder of the title) for property restitution (pt. restituire imobil in Romanian)

- C) for mortgage (debt) – position 1. Banca Agricola S.A. mortgage for the value of 24,910,464,214 lei nr. 4369/1999.


Again PwC Romania, Mr. Bufan and Mr. Scrieciu are in possession of this document.  I will make reference to this later on in my document.

The document in full can be seen here



I was conceded my grandfather (the absurdity of this title is consistent with the absurdity of the claim)

I am going to address now the current procedure under the Law 10 and your claim about the concession that was made to me by PWC Romania later on.

It was with amusement that I looked upon your claim that PwC Romania made me a concession by not addressing our (my brother and I) claim to be our grandfather’s heirs.  Pushing along the absurdity of PwC Romania’s claim I realize that my existence could have been annihilated if not for PwC Romania’s benevolence to allow me to claim my grandfather!  Mr. Scrieciu raised this point in a telephone conversation with me, but I did not take it much more than a pale joke attempt and I did not consider that he would repeat it to anyone else.  It is however worrisome that such a boast can be taken seriously by anyone.  One being ignorant in the Romanian legal procedure for inheritance but using just common sense, one should be even concerned, within PwC, if such a concession made by PwC Romania’s counsel eliminated the easiest way of dealing with a troublesome claim against the title of the house!  However, as I understand that you are yourself an attorney, you should note that in Romania the inheritance rights are dealt through the public notary and it is and was always outside the reach of any contrary PwC claims!  To clarify further this allegation that you re-issue for PwC Romania, in reality, true to his strategy of introducing red herrings into his lengthy appeals in order to obscure the main issue, Mr. Scrieciu has raised such an objection during the now suspended action to rectify the title deed.  However, the court pointed out the public notary act (included in the Court’s file case) as the only required proof of our right to the inheritance and curtailed any further discussion on this issue.  The record of this Mr. Scrieciu’s objection and its demise is in the respective Court file. Again, a “professional investigation” would not have omitted this fact! 



Complying with the law?

In the case of the procedural action outlined by the Law 10/2001 the unethical conduct of PwC Romania is further ignored in your “investigation”.

I have mentioned in my complaint that Mr. Bufan has explicitly warned me that if I do not acquiesce to PwC Romania’s intent to sell my grandfather’s house and split the proceedings, PwC Romania is going to tie me up in the Courts for a long time causing me further moral and financial pain and they could even go as far as to sell the “judicial rights” to the house to an investor. This warning was made in the presence of a third party.


Contrary to the warning and confident in the legality and rectitude of my request, I followed with a notification correctly formulated and compliant to the letter with the Law 10/2002.  As such, the law requested to include my estimated value of the property in case the restitution could be objectively and legally denied by the tenant.  As I have mentioned in my notification, without having the expertise claimed by PwC Romania, I have used the value of the loan secured against the house by COMTIM (the fact that COMTIM as a tenant could secure a loan against the house is another Communist Country absurdity!) from Banca Agricola S.A (as I mentioned above in the title deed paragraph).  I want to stress again, that I had to submit the estimation, as the Law 10 required it.  Not doing so would have invalidated my claim and would have been seized by PwC Romania as an opportunity to delay further the reparation process!  In any case this estimate should have been a moot point as no one can seriously claim that a bankrupt corporation imperiously needs the use of its headquarters!  More so, no accountant would have been able to instrument a financial compensation on behalf of a bankrupt company!


To this request, I have received a letter of response from PwC Romania which you reference in your reply.  However the letter contained 4 reasons why the property could not be returned to me as it can be seen on this copy and and not 2 as you specify in your response.  It is true that three of them are actually the same in content but were probably split in order to achieve the proverbial “strength in numbers”.  Here is my translation of the actual reasons:



a. the house was and is the headquarters of COMTIM,

b. the house is absolutely essential to the activity of COMTIM; in it the activity of the entire personnel of the liquidator takes place and it also holds the archives and all COMTIM’s documentation.  All the activities part of the liquidation process and other complex activities, technical, economical, financial and administrative take place daily in it.

c. the company is currently in the process of liquidating the assets of COMTIM, assets that are very numerous and with a high degree of complexity.  In this process take part the Liquidation Judge, the creditors and the liquidator.  At this moment the liquidation of the assets, supervised by the judge, is only 40% done.

d. the house was structurally modified and improved since the date it was  taken in 1950”


As you mention in your reply and as it is obvious to anyone, the first three reasons deal with the fact that the house is used in the process of liquidation!  I quote from your reply:

“The Liquidators pointed out in their response that it could not be in the creditors' best interests for the Property to be vacated immediately, as it was still being used as the base to recover all of the debts of the liquidation.  For the Property to be vacated before the end of the liquidation would mean the further diminution of available assets in the liquidation by finding, and moving to, alternative offices.”

In the above quote you admit that a move could be an inconvenience to PwC and you assert that such a move will further diminish the available assets in liquidation, although you do not explain your claim.  As I have stated in my corroborating documentation posted on my Web page which I have referenced on my initial message that was sent to you by Mr. Ricciardi, I have addressed the exact issue of this inconvenience by offering to keep the entire liquidation activity in the house if the title would be returned to me, as it was mandated by the law.  It has to be added that this inconvenience to PwC Romania is being balanced against the illegal act that took the house away from my family in 1950 and the urgency of a long overdue restitution!


The fourth argument, which you count as the second objection and consider it beyond suspicion, is the allegation that the house was considerably improved since it was taken away from my family in 1950. 

I have again to refer to my web page where I have a link to the text of the Law 10, which as you know regulates the restitution process.  The only reference in that law to compensation relative to “necessary and useful improvements” can be found only in article 49 paragraph 1 and I quote:


(1) The tenants are entitled to compensation for the value added to the residential buildings by necessary and useful improvements.”


I am sure that you as an attorney can see that the law, the English version is on the Web as well, leaves no doubt that any compensation applies only to tenants of residential building, excluding as such my grandfather’s house, a commercial building!  It is troublesome that PwC Romania and Mr. Emilian Radu would have omitted this fact and included this illegal claim in their reply letter.

As troublesome is the last claim by PwC Romania, which you again endorse, of the correctitude of their offer “in principle” for compensation.  The Law 10 requires upon refusal for restitution, an offer of compensation, which the rightful owner can accept or refuse.  It is more absurd from PwC Romania to assert that they made an offer of principle only (not specifying a value) based on the argument, which again you adopt, that a proper evaluation has to be made.  I would like to ask you and the personnel of PwC who is the most qualified to do such an evaluation if not the liquidator, PwC Romania?

Further more, I have to stress again that my request for restitution is addressed to the tenant of the house as it appears in the title deed, thus COMTIM SA.  The fact that COMTIM S.A. is being liquidated, transfers the duty of decision to PwC Romania. However, PwC Romania cannot use its own arguments as grounds for refusal (i.e. the liquidation activity and the inconvenience that a move will cause to PwC) nor can they make an offer of compensation in the name of COMTIM, a bankrupt company that cannot legally make such an offer.  It is surprising that this aspect escaped to the liquidator, PwC Romania or to you in your “investigation” although I have mentioned it in my reply to PwC’s letter.

Taking into the account all the above improprieties and illegal claims contained in the reply to my request for the restitution of my grandfather’s house made by Mr. Radu in the name of PwC Romania, acting as the liquidator of COMTIM, I have replied through my lawyer in a letter that can be seen at the following Web address: and here 



One smoking gun, two smoking guns, three

In November 2001, after waiting in vain for an answer to our previous request, we sued PWC Romania for failing to properly reply to our official notification for the return of our property.  In the suit we requested moral and financial compensation for every day of delay.   The lawsuit was logged with the "Judecatoria Timisoara" file number 24748/2001. First audience was set for November 27th, 2001.


On November 16th, 2001, PwC Romania publishes in two Romanian newspapers, a notice of sale (can be seen here for a number of COMTIM's assets.  The object of the advert is to validate that there are no better offers for the package.  The sale will be transacted upon the expiry of 20 days since the publishing of the advert.  In the package, our house is listed as item F and the sale is for the judiciary rights to the house!  This sale of judiciary rights was one of the two threats that were used by Mr. Bufan in his explicit blackmail in March 2001!  As it can be seen from the advertisement Mr. Bufan signs the transaction, which was without a doubt approved by the PwC resource in charge of the Liquidation section in Romania, Mr. Emilian Radu.


Please allow me to speculate, and it was up to you to validate this in your “professional investigation”, that this transaction was in the works while PwC Romania, through Mr. Emilian Radu, claimed that the restitution of the house was not possible due to the “complex activities” and “liquidation process” that was taking place in it.  At the same time in the same reply he mentioned that the house is absolutely essential to the activity of COMTIM” and that ”the liquidation of the assets, supervised by the judge, is only 40% done.” 


As I mentioned before, you make the same argument as Mr. Emilian Radu in your “conclusion” and you mention that:

“The Liquidators pointed out in their response that it could not be in the creditors' best interests for the Property to be vacated immediately, as it was still being used as the base to recover all of the debts of the liquidation.  For the Property to be vacated before the end of the liquidation would mean the further diminution of available assets in the liquidation by finding, and moving to, alternative offices.”


And yet, against “the creditors best interest”, the peril of “the further diminution of available assets in the liquidation by finding, and moving to, alternative offices”, the “complex activities” and “liquidation process” which takes palace into the house, combined with the important fact that “the liquidation of the assets, supervised by the judge, (is) only 40% done” against all this, the same PwC Romania professional team that made the above claims, Mr. Radu and Mr. Bufan, takes the decision to sell not the house(!), as COMTIM does not hold the title, but the judicial rights (meaning the right to further delay the restitution of my grandfather’s house)to the house!

A copy of the original advertisement can be found on Web site (the judicial rights to my grandfather’s house are at point F – drepturile litigioase in Romanian), that I have referenced to you in my initial message

It appears that PwC Romania was not only economical with the truth with me all along, but also more recently with you, another PwC professional that was trying to excuse their illicit dealings!


On November 25th, 2001, our lawyer notifies us about PWC's newspaper advert and on November 26th, 2001 we officially notify: COMTIM S.A., PWC Romania, the liquidation Judge for COMTIM S.A. and the potential buyer – S.C. Agrotorvis S.A. that any transaction with the house that we requested is illegal and is expressly forbidden by the law 10/2001.  A copy of the original Romanian document can be found here

At the same time as I have stated in the chronology page from my Web page I notify through an urgent fax message the office of Mr. Schiro in UK about the illegal intention of PwC Romania.  My message to the UK office was left unacknowledged; however, Mr. Scrieciu stated in Court on December 11th, 2001 that the above-mentioned transaction will not take place.  No official acknowledgment about the aborted sale of the judicial rights was ever received from PwC Romania!


At the same time that PwC Romania was moving forward with their illegal intent to sell the judicial rights to my grandfather’s house, Mr. Scrieciu has faxed to the court his objections to our lawsuit, bringing forth another strong argument against the legality and honesty of PwC’s Romania reply to our restitution request.  In his last page of his document (in bold) Mr Scrieciu argues that:

“S.C COMTIM – in liquidation, as we have shown, did not have the requirement to notify the plaintiffs on the value of the compensation, requirement that exists in the law for other type of legal entities that have been privatized already.  In such cases, the compensations are paid by other institutions and not by the legal entity tenant.”- My own English translation.

In other words PwC Romania, although it had made an offer in principle (as you call it) to compensate my brother and me for my grandfather’s house had no intention to take the offer to fruition!  At the same time when Mr. Radu signed the false offer, PwC Romania was conducting negotiations to sell the judicial rights to the house!  

Today the official position of PwC Romania is that expressed by Mr. Scrieciu – the rightful owners of the illegally nationalized house are not entitled to any compensation! 


Further misinformation from Romania

At the end of your argumentation you state that “the appeal court of Timisoara has voided your subsequent appeal”.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  The appeal court has deferred jurisdiction on this matter to a different Court and transferred the case.  As I have mentioned, in my web chronology, Mr. Bufan and Mr. Scrieciu requested in Court a postponement, as they were about to bring a new offer in.  The Judge decided not to delay the action any further and ruled on the competence of the Court, moving the venue to a different Court but recorded the promise of PwC Romania to come up with a legal offer.  However, no such offer was received by my brother or me, so far!

It is now upon PwC Romania, at the first audience in the new Court, to explain the failure to follow up with actions on their official promise!


What is the going hourly rate for honesty at PwC Romania?

Before getting to the conclusions, like in any “professional investigation”, it is important to look into the motives that lead to the current position of PwC Romania.  I am going to quote you again as a point of departure:

Liquidators (like liquidators everywhere) have a primary duty by law to realize the best value possible…”

In the above you state that it is financial gain that PwC Romania is after in this case.  I have previously remarked that the “liquidator” should be attempting to obtain the best value possible within the boundary of the law.  Making use of extortion and blackmail and ignoring the Romanian laws seems to be a little bit extreme!

However, currently PwC Romania keeps 10% of the value of the assets liquidated in the COMTIM liquidation process.  In discussions with me and messages send from Romania, Mr. Bufan had valued the house at 250,000US$.  As his intent was to split the proceeds with me, that translates into 125,000US$ coming into the bankruptcy recovery which translates again into a maximum gain of 12,500US$ for PwC Romania!  I do not know the bonus system for the partners in the PwC Romania, but it would be of interest to know what the personal financial interest of the decision makers is in this case.

On the flip side, I am requesting damages for any day of delay caused by the illegality of PwC's position.  The damages are calculated based on the current rental value of the house with the counter being triggered by the reply of Mr. Radu to my restitution request.  As that was the moment when PwC Romania made the choice between the restitution of the house as it was mandated by the law and their illegal dealings it would be fair to ask for damages from that date forward.  So far the cumulated damages are in the value of 150,000US$.  To that I will have to add my legal expenses so far in the amount of 10,000US$ which makes the total liability of PwC Romania in this case of 160,000US$.  As the principal of the liability is made of the rental value of the house any day of delay will increase the liability further.  I will ask you to quantify the damages that PWC’s credibility globally will incur when PwC Romania illegal actions are made public.


It appears that for a mere 12,500US$ (lots of money in Romania) Mr. Bufan and the supporting team of PwC Romania made the decision to use blackmail, to use extortion and to violate the Romanian law!




In the end, using the burden of the proof submitted in this document, I want to strongly affirm that PwC Romania has made use of threats to persuade me to enter a deal through which PwC Romania would sell the house and keep half of the profits.  Upon my refusal to give in to PwC Romania’s extortion tactic, they have carried out their threats and have attempted to sell the judicial rights to the house in a premeditated illegal act.  Further more, PwC Romania had tried to conceal this illegal act by refusing to restitute the house on vacuous grounds and by making a hollow offer of compensation. 

Through all the above, PwC Romania proved without a doubt its intent to discard legality, ethics and morality in order to benefit financially from an act that is supposed to repair an injustice that is more than 50 years overdue.


It is very upsetting that you have taken 3 and a half months to come with a conclusion that is an English translation of PwC Romania’s position and to avoid the blatant proof that I have submitted to you and was available for reference online.  As I stated at the beginning of the document, it is not my intention to speculate on your motives, but I feel compelled to express my disappointment and to make my opinions known to the PwC professionals that are in charge of guarding the professional image of the company. 


Your conclusion to a lengthy “professional investigation”, prompted in fact by my complaint to the UK Senior Partner, is very perplexing in the current climate of distrust cast upon the top Accounting firms by the catastrophic scandals in the US.  I would like to remain you that the recent events showed that the only employees that emerged with their integrity intact from the scandals where the ones that had the courage to reveal the improprieties within their company against the peer pressure!  It appears that ethics and morality count for more in the end than a big bonus or fat paycheck.


In addition, I found even more puzzling the fact that you extend the improprieties in Romania over the UK and the global organization.  I would like to refer to you the Code of Conduct: Framework of Ethical Decision Making available online on the PwC’s Global Ethics Home.  Please consider the 10 questions that are put forth and how far are PwC’s Romania dealing in this case from the spirit of the message sent to the public by your organization.


Your refusal to even consider the evidence that I have presented to you leaves me little choice but to present my case to the public.  As I mentioned before, your generalizing comments about the “accepted practices” used by PwC Romania should find an interested audience in the UK.  It is now that I would like to quote the 8th question of the Ethical Decision Making test - “How would it look in the newspapers?”  Do you think that exposing these facts to the public will make the implicated “professionals” lose more sleep than the illegality and immorality of their actions?  That is question number 10 from the same questionnaire!



I might be one of the few individuals who read these pages, but I found Mr DiPiazza’s First Global Review - Opening a Conversation very insightful and would like to point it to you and to the professionals of PwC Romania.  In his message, Mr. DiPiazza addresses the lack of confidence in the profession by trying to refocus on the root of PwC’s value, the quality of the people within the organization, I quote:

“… it is the people of PricewaterhouseCoopers who demonstrate integrity and excellence every day. It is they who secure the public's trust.”

It was my intent to allow you and the people of PricewaterhouseCoopers to demonstrate integrity and excellence in dealing with this matter; however your actions were inadequate in securing any kind of trust.


In addition, I can confidently state, based on the weight of my arguments and that of the proofs that I showed above that you had no intent to investigate PwC’s Romania illegal activities but rather you took the opportunity to further delay the legal restitution of my house in sync with PwC’s Romania strategy.  It was only the communication that I sent to your Senior Partner that prompted you to issue the English translation of PwC Romania position as a conclusion of a “professional investigation” ignoring the proof that I presented to you.  It is up to your Senior Partners to look into your actions and decide if this was a simple act of camaraderie or another failure to rise to the Ethics Standard presented by PwC to the public.


Please know, now at the end of my message, that I have not contacted you with the intent to plead for sympathy but with the offer to expose to you a problem, an illegal conduct and an un-ethical behavior within your organization.  Please rest assured that the disappointing conclusion of your “investigation” is not going to deter my resolve to see this matter brought to the only just conclusion – the restitution of my grandfather’s house to my family!  I will pursue this goal fervently and I am going to take further legal actions to collect damages from PwC Romania for the illegal actions and deceptions used in this case. 

My family’s predicament was started in 1950 by the Communists but since 1999 the only perpetrator is PricewaterhouseCoopers Romania!



Sincerely yours,


Eugen Szekely




-----Original Message-----

From: []

Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:02 PM




Dear Mr Szekely,


Thank you for your response to me dated 19 January and I have also been

passed copies of your recent notes to Barbara Kipp and Sam di Piazza at PwC

US and to Kieran Poynter at PwC UK, which have been carefully considered.


Whilst I am still more than satisfied with the work of the reviewers and

the conclusions reached in the initial review, I have decided to ask for a

further review of the allegations you have made by someone completely

independent from PwC Romania.  To this effect, a senior insolvency

practitioner from PwC UK who has experience of working in Eastern Europe

will go to Romania next week (week commencing Monday 3 February) to review

the work of the engagement team and to consider the allegations which you

have made regarding the COMTIM liquidation.


I will not therefore be able to come back to you before the end of the week

commencing Monday 10 February when I expect that this further review will

have been completed and considered.




Anthony Vernon



-----Original Message-----

From: Eugen Szekely []
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:28 AM
To: ''
Subject: RE:



Dear Mr. Vernon,



Thank you for your communication relative to a further review of my accusations of illegal and un-ethical practices used by PwC Romania.


Further to my review of your conclusion, dated December 30th 2002, of the first investigation of PwC Romania, I want to substantiate my statement that the Court in Romania has moved the lawsuit into a different jurisdiction (under the paragraph Further Misinformation from Romania) by providing to you the first date in court which was set, last week, for February 13th, 2003.  This goes contrary to the information provided by PwC Romania which I quote from your message: "the appeal court of Timisoara has voided your subsequent appeal". 

As I stated before, on that date the burden will be on PwC's Romania representation to explain why they failed to keep the promise expressed in front of the Judge to issue a legally bound reply to my request for restitution!


I dearly hope that this independent review will not ignore the proofs that I brought forth and the arguments that I made against the actions of PwC Romania.  More so, I expect that PwC will act in a consistent way, this time, with the call for "stronger ethics" that is promoted by Mr. DiPiazza.  Only through an action that will show PwC's ability to self-regulate and to address any deviation from its Code of Ethics, the essential task of building of Public Confidence can be continued. 

This case is not about "my genealogy" or whether "the house that my grandfather built should be returned to my family after 52 years" but rather about PricewaterhouseCoopers commitment to Ethics.

On February 13th, 2003 through action rather than words, PwC's decision will be obvious.


Best regards,


Eugen Szekely



-----Original Message-----
Eugen Szekely []
Sunday, February 16, 2003 3:29 PM
To: ''
Subject: further developments in
Importance: High



Dear Mr. Vernon,


I would like to take another opportunity to inform you of the latest developments in Romania.

It appears that the second investigation initiated by your office following my accusations as well a similar investigation initiated by the office of Ms. Barbara Kipp has lead to the introduction of a new PwC Romania resource to this case - Ms. Munteanu, Director, Head of Business Recovery Services.  

Although I have not received the conclusion of the two investigations I can give you their consequence as offered by the Romanian office.

Ms. Munteanu in a communication to my lawyer, on Tuesday 11th, 2003 at 10:11 pm proposes a reset of the procedure to the level of my initial request thus overlooking the prejudice created by the previous official response of PwC Romania signed by Mr. Emilian Radu.  Admitting no wrongdoing, it switches from a denial of the restitution based on bogus claims (i.e. the house contains the archives, the house is needed for the very complex activity...) to another argument based on the claim that the house was modified and improved in such a way that it is effectively a new house!

This new argument is as perplexing as the previous one and it can be called even brave as it follows hours after the irregularities of PwC Romania were presented to the public in the third largest national newspaper.  The scanned article can be seen here and it contains a detailed account of the official refusal for the restitution based on fake claims (PwC Romania official document signed by Emilian Radu - see the Web site) and the intent to sell the property invalidating the claims against the restitution that was executed at the same time (official notice to sell published in Renasterea Banateana - see the Web site) as I outlined in my previous communications.

The bravery of this new claim is given by the determination to argue against the obvious taking into the account that the paper published a smaller 1930 picture of the house together with a very large picture that was taken two days ago.  The subtitle on the larger picture reads "the house that holds the offices of the bankrupt company has barely changed since 1930 (see insert)".  Being wrong at the price of public ridicule could indeed be called gutsy! 

My research into this case and PwC Romania further lead me to other press coverage that relate to unethical actions taken by Mr. Bufan as the PwC Romania liquidator in the case of COMTIM.  I have made reference to these articles on the Web page that I dedicated to this case.

This indicates that the multiple investigations and accusations that I brought forth, all substantiated by hard proof, are being taken by PwC Romania as further endorsements of their unethical actions by the offices of PwC UK and US.

I don't know if the newspaper articles have been translated (I intend to do that as soon as time permits) and were brought forth as character witness against the unethical behavior of PwC Romania in my case, but that does not seem to have deterred PwC Romania in any way.

Following the recent developments it would be to my benefit to follow on the wake of the article published on Tuesday with a presentation to the public of the latest bogus argument by PwC Romania stressing that this argument is a direct result of two investigations from US and UK into the unethical actions displayed by PwC Romania previously.  I am going to send the same message to Ms. Munteanu in Romania allowing until Tuesday, February 18th, 2003, for a reversal of PwC’s Romania new unethical position in this case, avoiding thus the public ridicule.

I am looking forward to receiving the results of your recent investigation in this case.  Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Eugen Szekely




-----Original Message-----
Eugen Szekely []
Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:20 AM
To: ''
Subject: English translations of the Romanian newspaper articles are available
Importance: High


Dear Mr. Vernon,


Yesterday night I managed to finish the translation of all three articles that appeared in the Romanian press and are related to abuses and unethical conduct of Radu Bufanu and PwC Romania.  It appears that lately I took on a second full-time job in my quest to obtain my grandfather’s house although I have very little to show as a result.


The online articles and my English translations can be viewed on the Web site


I want to properly position below the articles and the chronology of events for a correct appreciation of the facts.


My first plea to the Chairman’s Office of PwC Canada, US and Romania dates back to June 2001 and coincides with my official request for restitution based on the law 10/2001.  I wrote to the respective Chairman following Mr. Bufanu’s explicit threat that he will stall my case and even sell the judicial right to the house if I don’t submit to his conditions.


I received no acknowledgment for my communication nor did I see a change in Mr. Bufanu’s position or that of PwC Romania


On November 13th, 2001 Radu Bufanu, in a different case, convinces a Judge to declare the initiation of bankruptcy procedures of the newly privatized sheet metal producer SIDEX for an outstanding debt of 1,000US$.  In order to understand the triviality of this lawsuit please note that SIDEX was sold on November 6th, 2001 to London based LNM for an estimated 400 million $.  Radu Bufanu, the liquidator of COMTIM, decided to bully the largest company in Romania for an outstanding debt that was in reality owed by a different company, ALIMSERV, company that was split off years before from SIDEX.  Asked about the absurdity of his action, Radu Bufanu declares that “apparently SIDEX does like being sued.”  A day later after the initiation of bankruptcy procedures, the liquidator of COMTIM receives by fax the confirmation that the debt was paid two years earlier!


As a result of the apathy from the central offices with regards to my accusations of unethical and illegal conduct used by Radu Bufanu, PwC Romania placed an advertisement to sell the “judicial rights” in the local newspapers on November 16th, 2001.


I have contacted again the offices of the Chairman in the UK about the illegality of this act as well sending letters of warning about this unacceptable behavior to the partners of this transaction.  The transaction was stopped, but no investigation was initiated.


On December 16th, 2001, I sent a second fax to the Chairman’s Office in the UK about the situation in Romania, communication that was left without a reply or acknowledgment.


After being blocked in completing his second threat against me, the sale of the “judicial rights to the house”, Radu Bufanu proceeds with the first threat, the stalling of my case against the legality of PwC’s refusal to restitute the house.


As a consequence of the stalling, I contacted the UK office in September 2002 and Mr. Vernon initiated an investigation based on my accusations in the dealings of PwC Romania in the liquidation of COMTIM.


During this investigation, in November 2002, Mr. Bufanu, in another case, places COMTIM’s block of apartments for public auction.  This notice was placed on the same date that the tenants of the apartments were in Court against the liquidator PwC, aiming to force the company keep its promise to sell the apartments to the current tenants.  The 79 tenants called this action by PwC an act of intimidation, but Mr. Bufanu maintains it was just made in the event that PwC would win – actually PwC lost in Court!


On December 18th, 2002 I contacted the offices of PwC’s CEO Mr. DiPiazza, The UK Senior Partner Mr. Kieran Poynter and the Global Ethics Leader Ms. Kipp.

On December 30th, 2002, I received Mr. Vernon’s report stating that PwC Romania proceeded according to their primary duty to the creditors and their conduct in my case was professional.


I rebutted this conclusion and wrote again to Mr. Vernon and to the offices of PwC’s CEO Mr. DiPiazza, The UK Senior Partner Mr. Kieran Poynter and the Global Ethics Leader Ms. Kipp on January 21st, 2003.


On January 31st, 2003 I was told that one investigation takes place in Romania using a Romanian resource, investigation initiated by the Ms. Kipp and a second one using an independent investigator from the UK initiated by Mr. Vernon.  I was promised a conclusion by the end of the week commencing on February 10th, 2002 by Mr. Vernon.


On January 31st, 2003 the first court date was set for February 13th, 2003, date which I communicate to Ms. Barbara Kipp, PwC’s Global Ethics Leader and to Mr. Anthony Vernon from the Office of the General Counsel.


February 11th, 2003 - on the same day that a newspaper article about my ordeal and the illegalities of PwC Romania was published in the third national newspaper I was offered a deal, that would save me the unnecessary judicial expenses, by PwC Romania through the director Ms. Speranta Munteanu.  Admitting no previous wrong doing, Ms. Munteanu invites me to restart the procedure from the beginning and start discussing a compensation based on the claim that the house is different from the house that was nationalized!


February 13th, 2003 – in court we request the restitution of the house bypassing the non-legality of PwC’s Romania last communication refusing the restitution.  A new court date was set for March 27th, 2003.


On February 16th, 2003 – I request from Ms. Munteanu the reconsideration of PwC’s Romania position relative to the claim that they are dealing with a new house.  I express my dismay to Ms. Kipp and Mr. Vernon about the new unethical claim issued by PwC Romania in the midst of two investigations in their previous unethical dealings.


As before, I refused to give in to the latest dealings of PwC Romania which intents to extort money from something that it does not posses legally.  I pointed out to Ms. Munteanu that it is the same house in reality and asked her to reassess her position.  The fact that the newspaper article published pictures of the house in 1930 and 2003, in which the house looks the same, did not make PwC change its position.  The obvious incorrectness of their argument did not appear to bother Ms. Munteanu or PwC Romania.


Summarizing all the above it does appear that the multiple failed contacts that I made about this case were interpreted as endorsements for their abusive policy by PwC Romania.  While before I was the only one complaining, it does appear that I was just one amongst 80 other people that were bullied and intimidated by Mr. Bufanu not to mention the 400 million $ worth SIDEX!  I found two additional newspaper articles in addition to the recent one dealing with my case in which these abuses were exposed to the public.  The recent proposal from PwC Romania indicates that nothing has changed, except the name of the director.


With respect to the latest corporate policy promoted by the CEO Mr. DiPiazza around the world, it appears that the policy of “regaining the public trust” was appended in Romania with a particular modus operandi – “through intimidation”


Recently I became an avid reader of PwC’s Web site, especially the ethics related pages.  Today I found an interesting advertorial which asks “can integrity be hard wired into a company?”

The page can be seen here and it starts by stating the topic: internal control, i.e., the ability of a company to monitor and control itself.  And it ends with the following questions:


“So can integrity become as much a part of a company’s daily existence as turning on the lights and answering the telephone?

Shouldn’t that be the goal?”


I looked very hard and couldn’t find a disclaimer excluding PwC Romania from this goal.


Best regards,


Eugen Szekely



-----Original Message-----
Eugen Szekely []
Sunday, February 23, 2003 8:42 PM
To: ''
Subject: the outcome of the investigation
Importance: High


Dear Mr. Vernon,


Could you please indicate when should I expect the result of your latest investigation in my accusations of unethical conduct of PwC Romania? As you know, from my previous recent messages there is no change in PwC Romania position other than the fact that I am communicating with Ms. Munteanu, Director of the Liquidation Services. 


Ms. Munteanu's position represents a change in the argument content as it switches from the "we need the house because it contains the archives" to "we are in possession of a new house relative to the one nationalized in 1950."  Both arguments have one thing in common - their remoteness from the truth and it indicates the same disregard for the Romanian law and ethics. As this new proposal comes hours after the publication of an article in one of the most read newspapers in Romania, which included comparative pictures of the house in 1930s and 2003, and in the midst of your independent investigation it indicates a disregard for the weight of the proof that I brought forth and the accusations that I made as well a confidence in the results of the investigation that took place.


In one of my previous messages I showed the result of the idleness of PwC in dealing with the unethical actions of PwC Romania, which lead to at least two other unethical abuse cases as documented in the Romanian press.  The recent decision of the Comtim creditors to end the liquidation based on the low value of the remaining assets makes me suspicious of another attempt by PwC Romania to detour the law if I don't "play ball" with them.  In addition, the latest communication from Ms. Munteanu includes an opinion that states that I am the only one to blame for the delay of the restitution of my grandfather's house!  The fact that I signaled the illegalities of PwC Romania to the CEO of PwC and I had taken legal action against them does not appear to bother the Director of the Liquidation Services.  It is after all my fault that PwC Romania made me a false offer and invoked untrue arguments against the restitution while proceeding with a blindsided sale of the house.


It was my position in the past, to allow PwC to take care internally of the obvious problems existing within their Romanian organization.  As such, there can be only two outcomes to my complaints - either a significant change in the attitude displayed by PwC Romania in this case or a renouncement from PwC of its messages for "stronger ethics" and ability to self regulate.  I am going to be satisfied with either message from the PwC Leaders but so far my cries about irregularities were only met with silence while PwC Romania breaks new ground in twisting the truth.


As I declared before, I am going to relentlessly pursue the restitution of my grandfather's house through all means and I am going to continue to enroll the support of the public and various organizations to my cause in order to force PwC Romania to abide by the law.


Best regards,


Eugen Szekely

Ottawa, Canada


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:17 AM
Importance: High


 Dear Mr Szekely,


I have now been briefed on the results of the independent investigation which a Business Recovery expert from the UK firm has undertaken into your complaints about the actions and conduct of PwC Romania in the liquidation of COMTIM and, particularly, in relation to the property used as the headquarters of COMTIM's business and which once belonged to Eugen Klein ("the Property").


The reviewer has studied all of the correspondence which you have sent to Sam DiPiazza, Barbara Kipp, Kieran Poynter, Larry Keeshan and myself, and has reviewed all of the documentation sent by you and exhibited on your website.  The reviewer also travelled to Romania, interviewed the key people involved and reviewed the liquidation work as it affected the Property and translations of the relevant legislation including Law 10. His conclusion is that PwC Romania has acted at all times both properly and professionally in relation to the liquidation.  The reviewer confirmed to me his clear understanding that the PwC liquidators have acted within the relevant principles and procedure of Romanian bankruptcy law. Consequently, the reviewer finds that your complaints have not been substantiated by his investigation.


The reviewer has also not found there to have been any breach of the ethical code of conduct.  Having read your detailed version of events, and interviewed those involved in the meeting where you were allegedly threatened, the reviewer has concluded that the conduct of the PwC Romania liquidators was at all times professional and appropriate.


Furthermore, the reviewer has identified issues as to the proof of your relationship to Eugen Klein and has been advised by PwC Romania that it is for you to prove to the satisfaction of the relevant Court, not merely PwC Romania, that you are the lawful heir of Eugen Klein.


The PwC partner with regional responsibility for risk management in Romania has also confirmed to me that he is satisfied with the completeness, independence and objectivity of this review as well as its conclusions. The results of this review have also been communicated to Barbara Kipp.  Ms Kipp has been briefed by me on how this review has been carried out.  I believe that Barbara will be contacting you separately regarding this matter.


Based on the results of this investigation, I do not believe that any further action on the part of PwC is called for.  Unless you have another unrelated complaint about how the liquidation is conducted by PwC from this point onwards, I do not believe that anyone's interests are best served by carrying on our correspondence any further.  The same goes for any future correspondence you might send to any of those named above (and anyone else in a PwC firm relating to this matter) which will be automatically forwarded to me.


I am advised that your proper channel for complaint about this matter is to make a complaint to the syndic judge supervising the bankruptcy of COMTIM under the Bankruptcy Law.  If you continue to feel aggrieved, I would suggest that you utilise this channel.  Given the results of this review, I must also request that you desist from this point onwards in making unjustified accusations against PwC Romania on your website (PwC Romania reserves all of its rights in this respect).




Anthony Vernon



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received

this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.




-----Original Message-----
Eugen Szekely []
Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:42 PM
To: ''
Subject: Mr. Vernon's second investigation
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential



 Dear Ms. Kipp,


I would like to ask you to keep the contents of this message confidential and not to forward it to any other PwC resource.  It will be entirely up to you to act as you see fit and as the position that you hold within PwC allows you to do.


Two days ago, I have received the conclusion of Mr. Vernon’s investigation into my accusations.  As a reminder this was initiated by Mr. Vernon following my analysis of his first “professional” investigation into the unethical and illegal conduct of PwC Romania.  Although, Mr. Vernon mentions that he has communicated the “independent” reviewer’s finding to you I am attaching it to this email with my comments.  It will be up to you to decide if this conclusion corresponds to the internal PwC policy of investigating accusations of unethical conduct. 


As Mr. Vernon is no longer interested in any communication with me on this matter I am not going to forward this message to him although it will be made available on my web site dedicated to this subject.  As well, I am going to send the same message to Mr. DiPiazza together with the latest documents that were added on the Web site, including the three Romanian newspaper articles related to abuses promoted by PwC Romania in the particular case of the COMTIM’s liquidation.


This will be the last communication from me to PwC as I am satisfied that I have made all the effort to allow PwC to take care of this problem internally.  The conclusion of Mr. Vernon’s message leaves no doubt about PwC’s UK lack of interest in this case.



Analysis of Mr. Vernon’s conclusion of the “independent investigation”


As a background reference I want to point out the conclusion of Mr. Vernon’s investigation and my analysis which can be viewed on the Web at


Although my analysis contained references to official documents and refuted all the claims made by Mr. Vernon’s in his first conclusion, the outcome of the new investigation makes no other statement than that of “propriety” relative to the actions of PwC Romania in my case.

Mr. Vernon mentions that the documents that I brought forth in support of my accusations were reviewed by the investigator, however not a single one of my accusations has been explicitly dealt with.


As such, the offer from Mr. Emilian Radu which brings forth arguments against the restitution of the house (arguments used by Mr. Vernon’s conclusion of December 30th, 2002) and the advertisement for the sale of the “judicial rights” of the house which places PwC Romania in a conflicting position relative to the truth has been totally ignored. 


The fact that in the same offer by Mr. Emilian Radu, PwC Romania made me an offer of compensation without an amount value, only to argue later in Court that PwC Romania does not feel that it should compensate me in anyway has never been addressed although the documents issued and signed by PwC Romania consultants are and were available on the web site and were brought up in my analysis of Mr. Vernon’s first investigation.


Although I cannot be the one to judge if bogus arguments and false compensation offers are against the PwC Code of Ethics I have acted on the assumption that as they are against common ethics they might be also against PwC’s version of it.


Further troublesome is the interviewer’s claim that he had interviewed the people present at the meeting when I was allegedly threatened!  Please note that at any moment of this entire investigation no PwC employee has ever requested any additional information from me although I have offered my help with any detail that needed further clarification.  As such, this particular comment shows that the independent reviewer had one-sidedly used only information from PwC Romania and not bothered to find out from me when the meeting did take place and who was present at it.  If he would have conducted the investigation in a professional manner and would have contacted me about this issue I would have had pointed out the person that witnessed this incident which took place in a meeting outside the COMTIM headquarters and preceded by one day the official meeting with the other PwC Romania resources and the lawyer Mr. Scrieciu!

In addition, as character witnesses, I placed on the web two Romanian articles and the corresponding English translations relative to two other unethical acts committed in the process of COMTIM’s liquidation by PwC Romania.  The latest intimidation act took place in November 2002 and coincided with the first investigation conducted by Mr. Vernon.  These articles support my accusation of unethical conduct and yet were ignored by the reviewer who chose to deal only with PwC Romania employees in his investigation!


With regards to the statement that the reviewer had found problems relative to my claim as being the heir of Eugen Klein as I pointed out in my analysis of the Mr. Vernon’s first conclusion, the proof was presented in front of the Judge during the proceedings of the now-suspended trial relative to the illegality of the nationalization.  As such, it was dropped by PwC legal team only to be resurrected as a claim of concession by Mr. Vernon.  This argument was presented in my analysis of Mr. Vernon’s and it was within arm’s length of the reviewer for analysis. 


A copy of the document can be seen on the Web at and it reads on the right side of the screen “The groom was known in public life as Eugen” and constitutes the “missing link” that bothered the reviewer.  As I said before, the document is in the file of the suspended lawsuit at The Appeal Court and is known to the PwC Romania legal counsel and representatives.  In the same file there are two witnesses that testified in Court on the same issue.

Contrary to Mr. Vernon’s claim it is not up to me to prove again the fact that my grandfather Ionas Klein used the name Eugen in public life and business dealings but rather that of a reviewer to review all the substantiating documents that were at his disposal. 





As you are aware of the content of Mr. Vernon’s conclusion of the first “professional” investigation and my detailed analysis, I want to point out to you that this second version contains no argumentation supporting his conclusion.  In this new version, Mr. Vernon hides behind the unknown “reviewer” and the fact that the “reviewer traveled to Romania” in order to deliver pre-packaged verdicts: “PwC Romania has acted at all times properly and professionally,” “the PwC liquidators have acted within the relevant principles and procedure of Romanian bankruptcy law,” “the conduct of PwC Romania liquidators was at all times professional and appropriate” and “The reviewer has also not found there to have been any breach of the ethical code of conduct”.

All these conclusions are not being substantiated however I am told that “The PwC partner with regional responsibility for risk management in Romania has also confirmed to me that he is satisfied with the completeness, independence and objectivity of this review as well as its conclusions.


In other words a one-sided investigation, in which the “reviewer” conveniently ignored the most bothersome supporting documents and pretended not to find others, has completely satisfied other unnamed PwC partners and Mr. Vernon!


At the end of Mr. Vernon’s conclusion, contrary to his first investigation, he changed from expressing his sympathy for the predicament of my family to demanding me to stop any correspondence with any PwC partners on this matter (as it will be automatically be forwarded to him).  In the same tone he requests from me to desist from “making unjust accusations against PwC Romania on my web site” based on the results of this review.


Taking into account the above and Mr. Vernon’s first review of my accusations I found very troublesome that it was again Mr. Vernon who was in charge of the second investigation!  The veiled lack of interest in investigating the first time the situation in Romania has turned into the irritation displayed in his most recent conclusion.  I would like to add that I have kept Mr. Vernon informed of the situation in Romania with respect to the two newspaper articles dealing with the intimidation tactics used by PwC Romania in the liquidation of COMTIM and the most recent article that deals with my case.


I am reserving the rights to contact the media in the UK and make available the conclusions of this investigation to the public on my web site.  The vacuous of this conclusion combined with that of the first investigation do not offer anything that disproves my accusations. 


Until the proper arguments are going to be brought forth by PwC to disprove the accusations that I make on my Web page, the web site will stay and continue to document the developments in this case. 

As a side note, the Web site is hosted in the United States where the freedom of speech is guaranteed under the First Amendment!


As I mentioned in the beginning of this message I ask you, Ms. Kipp to review Mr. Vernon’s conclusion as well as my comments and decide if this investigation is in compliance with the PwC guidelines.  In my opinion I have seen more objective investigations in Communist Romania!


Thank you in advance for your collaboration on this matter of great importance to my family and myself.


Sincerely yours,


Eugen Szekely

Ottawa, Canada


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Mr. Vernon's second investigation


Dear Mr Szekely

I am out of town this week on business, with very limited phone and email access.  I wanted to acknowledge my receipt of your email below, and let you know that I will get back to you next week on this.

Just one point, so as not to create any inappropriate expectation:  I wanted to let you know that our normal procedure as it relates to investigations is that we do not communicate the details of any investigations to complainants.  I will get back to you next week to answer, as appropriate, your questions below, but I will not be relaying any investigation details.  

I hope you will understand and respect our process on this.

Thank you for your patience.


-----Original Message-----
Eugen Szekely []
Sunday, March 02, 2003 8:02 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: Mr. Vernon's second investigation


Dear Ms. Kipp,


I want to thank you for your reply and I want to add more proof to my comments relative to the issue of the “unproven heritance” contained in both Mr. Vernon’s conclusions and reused by Ms. Speranta Munteanu in the most recent PwC Romania “offers”.


The history of the name issue can be found on the Web (address below) and contains the substantiating documents that are in PwC Romania’s possession and yet were overlooked by the “independent” reviewer and Ms. Munteanu.


Thank you in advance for your help.


Best regards,


Eugen Szekely


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: Conclusion of matter


Dear Mr Szekely,

The purpose of this letter is to confirm the items that were discussed in our telephone conversation this afternoon.

I reminded you that I did not, at any point during our conversation on 29th January, agree to conduct a separate investigation into your complaints.  I informed you during that call that I would review with Anthony Vernon the way in which the second review was set up to satisfy myself that it was objective and independent and would examine in as much detail as possible your complaint about a breach of the firm's ethical code of conduct.  

To this end, I agreed with Anthony that it was appropriate in this instance to take the relatively unusual step of bringing in an extra-territorial expert to review the complaints made against PwC Romania given the comparatively small size of the Business Recovery team in Romania.

I was made aware of, and agreed with, the instruction of an experienced UK expert in this field to do this review and I also asked that his conclusions were discussed with the PwC partner with regional responsibility for risk management in Romania before Anthony wrote to you.

As I relayed to you, I have reviewed the extensive investigation report on this matter, and am aware of the reviewer's conclusions.  I have also seen a copy of Anthony's note to you.   I am completely satisfied that your complaints have been treated seriously and investigated properly.

Given the results of the review and the finding that there has been no breach of the firm's ethical code of conduct, I also do not believe there to be any reason for me to engage in any further correspondence with you on this matter.

It is not our policy to share the details of any investigations with complainants.   I realize that you may have questions about these details; however, we are considering the matter closed.


Barbara Kipp

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.



go back to the main page