Former Upland mayor works to rebuild his life after time in prison

New book. New consulting company. Forming a nonprofit. Working in construction industry.

John Pomierski is building a new life after prison.

He accepted a guilty plea for one count of bribery because of his actions while mayor of Upland, California. That’s the city immediately to the west of where I live.

He was sentenced to two years in federal prison. He was in custody from October 1, 2012 until April 28, 2014. I’ve written of his case extensively.

He is working to rebuild his life. Yesterday, he held a book signing for his new book describing his experiences in federal prison. It is a guide for people heading off to ‘federal camp.’

Price cut on print books

I’ve dropped the prices for the print copies of my books available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and iTunes store.

Here is what you can find on-line:


 Tragedy of Fraud – Insider Trading Edition

Story of Scott London’s fall from regional audit partner at KPMG to prison inmate because of his insider trading.

Tragedy of Fraud series now available in print as well as e-book formats

tragedy-cover   tragedy-cover


Both books in my Tragedy of Fraud series are now available in print format from Amazon.

The newest book:


Tragedy of Fraud – Insider Trading Edition describes – Scott London’s long fall from Big 4 audit partner to prison inmate.

Click the link for your reading preference:

First book in the series:


Tragedy of Fraud – The Ripple Effects from Fraud and the Wages Earned – Consequences of fraud spread far. There is a long list of well-earned wages from fraud that will be paid in full.

Available in your preferred format:

Upland bribery case – where are they now? Three have served their time. Ex-mayor has six months to go.

Time for my semi-annual update on the location of defendants in the Upland bribery case.  Since my last update in July, a third schemer has been released. The former mayor still is in federal prison in Taft, California. That is a privately operated facility in Kern County.

Why am I still interested? Following the details of a specific incident helps demonstrate the tragedy of fraud. It’s also an education on the legal system.

Upland bribery case – where are they now? Two in jail and two have served their time.

Since my last update in December, one of the defendants in the Upland bribery case has reported for his confinement. Two have completed their term and been released. The former mayor is still in jail.

Why am I still interested? To me, following the details of a specific incident helps illustrate the tragedy of fraud. This also provides me an education on the legal system. That is useful since I’m a CPA.

Final defendant sentenced in city corruption case

The Daily Bulletin reports that Final defendant in Pomierski case sentenced to one year, one day.

The fourth defendant was sentenced to 12 months and one day in federal prison for his role as middleman in the bribery case involving the mayor of a city next to where I live.

There was one guilty conviction and three guilty pleas. The sentences are two years, one year & one day, one year & one day, and six-month prison & six months home detention. That wraps up the sentencing.

2 year prison sentence for corruption case

I’ve been following the corruption case in the city next to where I live. Links to earlier discussions are at end of this post.

The mayor was accused of accepting bribes from a local business in return for helping them get back in business. In April 2012, he pled guilty to one count of bribery. The remaining 9 charges were dropped at the sentencing.

Yesterday he was sentenced to two years in federal prison.

Q: Why are corruption and bribery frauds so difficult to discover?

A: Because all the documents are outside the organization being defrauded.

When it comes to corruption and bribery, it only takes a little planning for a fraudster to keep all the papers that contain any trace of a fraud outside the organization.  A minimal amount of planning will mean there is no paper inside an organization that contains a hint of a problem.

I’ve discussed this issue using the example of an alleged fraud in the city next to where I live. The alleged part of the story is slowly turning to fact with one participant, the mayor, entering a plea agreement.

Now think about auditing the city.  All the pieces of paper that show any hint of the fraud are outside the city hall.  How would the city’s auditor find that?

Guilty plea in corruption trial mentioned a year ago

In March 2011 I discussed a corruption case in the city next door to where I live.

The local newspaper reports that the mayor has pled guilty to accepting a $5,000 bribe from a local business.  From the Daily Bulletin: Ex-Upland mayor pleads guilty, the very short version of the story:

{The mayor} was accused of conspiracy, extortion and bribery offenses that led the business owners to pay $45,000 in bribes.

So an auditor couldn’t pick up any red flags to a corruption case. Why is that a problem?

Getting back to the original question of whether a CPA could identify in the alleged incident that there was some kind of a fraudulent transaction during an audit (assuming it actually happened) – – I am thinking the answer is it would not be possible to find the fraud, even if you were looking for it.

So, what’s the problem?

How could an auditor pick up any red flags to this corruption case? Let’s change the circumstances

Previous posts have given the background about a corruption indictment and my questions of what could have possibly been seen by a CPA auditor in this alleged situation.

Now let’s change the scenario.  If it is your client getting shaken down the implications on the audit aren’t that severe.  Just change the alleged situation to something different where the local business approached the mayor and asked him to intervene.  By changing that part of the story, it will convert this from an allegation of the mayor shaking down a business to a hypothetical of your client successfully bribing a public official.  That would make it an issue with a very material impact on your client and therefore a huge issue for you and your audit report.

Having changed those circumstances to where your client illegally paid off a government official, how could you possibly detect that bribery payment?