The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has confirmed the conviction of the former IT manager of a Plano-based software 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, so he embarked on a weekend campaign of electronic sabotage, according to the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instant Insights /

Employee convicted of sabotaging company computers loses appeal

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You