IBM and PricewaterhouseCoopers are not independent. Old and new allegations of collusion.
Publishing an open letter I circulated on 24 December 2021.
Alison Wright. Brighton, UK. alisonwright45@btinternet.com 24 December 2021
To whom it may concern
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) for 98 years, as PwC confirm in IBM’s 2020 Annual Report: “We, or firms that we have ultimately acquired, have served as the Company’s auditor since 1923.” Whilst the US Securities and Exchange Commission has not regulated on mandatory auditor firm rotation, the EU brought in regulations limiting the number of years an auditor can audit a public interest company (PIE), including listed companies, to a “maximum duration of 20 years”, with “no renewal of audit engagements after 17 June 2020” for relationships existing prior to 1994 . The goals of this regulation have been described as “reducing the familiarity threat; reinforcing professional skepticism; reinforcing the independence of audit firms; increasing audit quality and broadening the choice of statutory auditors and audit firms for PIEs”. In my opinion, IBM and PwC’s relationship, at nearly five times the maximum duration permitted by the EU, breaks the NYSE rule 107.02 requiring auditor independence.6 IBM's Corporate Social Responsibility 2020 report headlines "operating with trust and transparency". However, I’m aware that IBM has been neither transparent nor trustworthy regarding it's prior use of digital identities in Germany for recording census data, (Locating the victim: An overview of census-taking, tabulation technology, and persecution in Nazi Germany, DM Luebke, S Milton between 1933 and 1941), when tattooed digital identities were used to enable the clock-work movement of millions of people across Europe to their deaths on trains which IBM systems timetabled.
IBM had made a statement on the matter after a court case in 2001 which is available through archived sources. IBM said "It has been known for decades that the Nazis used Hollerith equipment and that IBM's German subsidiary during the 1930s - Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen GmbH (Dehomag) - supplied Hollerith equipment." and "It is also widely known that Thomas J. Watson, Sr., received and subsequently repudiated and returned a medal presented to him by the German government for his role in global economic relations. These well-known facts appear to be the primary underpinning for these recent allegations." I challenge the veracity of IBM's statement that these facts are well known. There is a public interest in discussing this. Later in the statement IBM says "The documents that did exist were placed in the public domain some time ago to assist research and historical scholarship. The records were transferred from the company's New York and German operations to New York University and Hohenheim University in Stuttgart, Germany -- two highly respected institutions with the appropriate credentials to be custodians of these records. Independent academic experts at these universities now supervise access to the documents by researchers and historians." IBM's historic archives aren't advertised by these academic institutions and I could find no papers referencing these source documents, other than Edwin Black’s research and academics that draw on this. How can we trust IBM's ethics are good when it refuses to speak with transparency about it's role in the destruction of millions of people in the German Reich, using digital identities to manage the process? IBM has maintained a historical narrative which excludes this information. It is of significance today because under the threat of a coronavirus which is virulent but causes mild symptoms, those of a severe cold, electronic digital identities are being mandated under emergency legislation in most countries. IBM and PwC’s long auditing relationship investigating for breaking NYSE rule 107.02 requiring auditor independence.
Given the information above, I have identified a conflict of interest which needs investigating for fraud, in the following UK Government contracts: Crown Commercial Service, on behalf of Cabinet Office, has contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) LLC for “the provision of COVID-19 Task Force” management consultancy services from 1 October 2021 to 1 April 2023. The location of the £2.7m contract is specified as United Kingdom, Isle of Man, Channel Islands, British Oversea Territories, Europe, Rest of the World. PwC are providing “direct support and knowledge transfer”, “Mobilising teams of appropriate skills and experience of working in public sector settings to support key Covid-19 Task Force priorities for: 6.1.1.1 Policy development and delivery. 6.1.1.2 Portfolio and programme management. 6.1.1.3 Data and analysis.” There is a procedural irregularity in the award of this contract which occurs before the tender close date. Given PwC’s terms of reference and the timing of COVID Task Force’s decision to go ahead with “Plan B”, it is highly likely that PwC were integrally involved in this decision mandating use of vaccine certificates for certain situations. As Professor Dalgelish concludes “faith in vaccine passports — at, for example, nightclubs and music venues — (is) idiotic, since the greatest spreaders of the virus are currently vaccinated people aged under 40”, the attempted use of vaccine passports to control spread of endemic coronaviruses is a policy not underpinned by scientific theory. Crown Commercial Service has also contracted with Entrust (Europe) Limited for the supply of vaccine certificates, contract period 17 May 2021 to 31 March 2022 and contract period 28 July 2021 to 27 July 2022.
The Entrust vaccine certificates are integrated with IBM Watson Artificial Intelligence, “ENTRUST DATACARD™ AND IBM® MAAS360 WITH WATSON: Building Strong Alliances for an Integrated Mobile Identity Assurance Solution. The contract for the vaccine certificates represent a mutual interest between Entrust and IBM. I have established that IBM and PwC do not have an independent relationship and I allege that the decision of the PwC managed COVID Task Force mandating vaccine passports which benefits IBM through integration with Entrust is fraudulent.
Yours sincerely,
Alison Wright