The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hasconfirmed the conviction of the former IT manager of a Plano-basedsoftware firm who sabotaged the company’s computer system with an electronic “time bomb”that was set to go off after he submitted his resignation.

Michael Thomas was upset that ClickMotive fired his coworker, sohe embarked on a weekend campaign of electronic sabotage, accordingto the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision.

Thomas deleted over 600 files, disabled backup operations,diverted executives’ emails to his personal account andset a “time bomb” that would result in employees being unable toremotely access the company’s network after Thomas submitted hisresignation.

When the dust settled, ClickMotive incurred over $130,000 inexpenses to undo the harm Thomas caused. In an interview with theFBI, Thomas stated that he engaged in the conduct because he wasfrustrated with the company and wanted to make the job harder forthe person who would replace him.

Two days before a grand jury was to consider his violations ofthe Computer Fraud and Abuse Act under Section 1030(a)(5)(A),Thomas fled to Brazil. He was arrested three years later when hesurrendered to FBI agents at the Dallas/Fort Worth InternationalAirport.

After a jury returned a guilty verdict, an Eastern District ofTexas U.S. district judge sentenced Thomas to time served for thefour months he’d been detained after returning to the country andplaced him on supervised release for three years.

Thomas appealed his conviction to the Fifth Circuit by arguingthe evidence was not sufficient to convict him because he wasauthorized to damage the company’s computer system as part of hisIT duties.

In his decision, Judge Gregg Costa rejected Thomas’ argumentthat he was allowed to damage the company’s computers under theComputer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“We conclude that Section 1030(a)(5)(A) prohibits intentionallydamaging a computer system when there was no permission to engagein that particular act of damage,’’ Costa wrote.

Costa noted that the circumstances surrounding the damaging actsprovide even more support for the finding of guilt — not tomention his fleeing to Brazil.

“He submitted his resignation immediately after completing thedamage spree and timed the most damaging act — the one thatwould prevent remote access — so that it would not occur until hewas gone,” Costa wrote. “Why this sequence of events if Thomas hadpermission to cause the damage?”