Champagne wishes

He stole $100 million, and lived like a king. Then it all fell apart.

by Steve Maich on Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:20am - 119 Comments

Champagne wishesThe experts will tell you that most frauds start small—maybe a few hundred bucks pocketed here, a little accounting fudge there—and get gradually bigger over time as the thief warms to the task, and gains confidence. That’s the way it almost always goes.

But Paul Champagne was not your typical fraudster. For one thing, Champagne had no particular expertise in finance. He was a computer engineer, brought in to manage maintenance contracts at Canada’s Department of National Defence in 1992. He was a technical authority, who could tell the bureaucrats how to buy, operate and maintain their computer systems more efficiently, and to save the taxpayer money in the process. For most of his time at DND, he wasn’t even an employee, but an outside contractor. And, up until the day he was fired in 2003, most of his colleagues thought he was doing a great job. Even when he was fired, it was for exceeding his authority in approving contracts that were beyond his position.

His theft wasn’t discovered until shortly thereafter. And what a theft it was: an estimated $100 million embezzled from DND through a phony invoicing scam that ran for just under a decade. Every year he supplemented his $80,000 salary by about $10 million—one of the longest-running and biggest frauds in Canadian history.

Champagne recently sat down with Maclean’s in a small, windowless room at the minimum security Pittsburgh Institution, just outside Kingston, Ont., for his first-ever public interview. He had just passed one year in prison, and was a little less than two months away from his early release date—June 3. He wanted to tell his story. To make it clear that he takes responsibility for what he did, to absolve others who might have been tarnished by it—and yes, to “apologize to the Canadian taxpayer.” But there was a warning, too: stealing that much money from under the nose of the Canadian government was easier than you might imagine, getting away with it for a decade was even easier. And it’s all rooted in the way that government departments reward those who spend their budget, and punish those who do not.

Paul Champagne was hired to clean up a mess, and clean it up he did. It was 1992, and he was an IT specialist with a company called Montreal Engineering. When DND put out the call for someone to help manage the department’s systems maintenance contracts, Champagne’s firm offered his services, and won the mandate. At the time, DND was spending around $227 million a year on more than 2,000 separate contracts. Champagne’s big innovation was to declare that DND would henceforth pay to fix only systems and equipment that were broken. Essentially, he was ripping up a couple thousand extended warranties, and betting that the government would save a bundle. He was right. Maintenance costs soon fell by more than three-quarters, to about $50 million per year. Over the course of the 1990s, Champagne’s simple restructuring saved the government well over $1 billion.

He was a 34-year-old father of three young children making a decent middle-class living, doing contract work for the government. But he quickly became a star. Though he had no financial signing authority, Champagne earned a reputation as the IT guru within Canada’s military bureaucracy, presiding over DND’s sprawling computer infrastructure. That first winter, as the government’s year-end approached, Champagne learned about the games that happen when bureaucrats rush to spend the last of their budgets. What he soon discovered was that bureaucrats live in almost as much fear of under-spending their budgets as they do of overrunning them. Budgets that aren’t spent get cut, and nobody wants their budget cut. Champagne became known as the guy who could spend vast sums quickly. When you had a million bucks that you had to get rid of, he was the guy who could make it disappear—on software upgrades, licences, anything intangible and related to technology that you didn’t need, and didn’t understand anyway. But that very first year he ran into a wall. “I reached a point where I just didn’t have any more I could spend on,” he recalls. “I couldn’t move the money out the door fast enough anymore to meet the goals of the department.”

He came up with a plan. If DND was so desperate to spend money, he thought of a perfect place to stuff it: his pockets.

A fraud investigator would call it a simple fake invoicing scheme—charging DND for work that was never performed. But to a non-criminal it can get a little confusing. And that confusion is what helps fraudsters go undetected.

Champagne set up his own consulting company, and approached another small Ottawa-area engineering firm, RMC Systems. He asked RMC to function as his billing and accounting department for work he was doing for DND. He said his work was secret, dealt with matters of national defence, and he needed someone to process his payments. Meanwhile he approached a much larger DND contractor, Digital Equipment. (It was later acquired by Compaq Computer, which was finally acquired by Hewlett-Packard.) He told officials at Digital Equipment to pay any invoices that come from RMC, and to pass along the costs to him at DND. All of this sounds pretty suspicious, but Champagne assured both RMC and Digital Equipment that it was all part of the department’s streamlining. And besides, both companies would be paid for their trouble. “I can be pretty convincing,” Champagne says now.

So, Champagne submitted fake invoices to RMC. RMC paid Champagne, added a small commission and passed the bill on to Digital Equipment (and later to Compaq, then H-P). The larger company paid RMC, added its own commission and sent the bill to DND. And at DND, Paul Champagne made sure H-P got paid. It was a tidy little money train, with one obscure DND contractor at both the beginning and the end. But nobody at RMC, or Compaq, or H-P ever saw the full picture. Once the ruse was finally exposed, all of the companies claimed that they had been duped, and no one at those firms was ever charged with a crime.

Bookmark and Share
  • Deep in thought

    I am very interested in all that is getting dragged into this debate. I admittedly have some strong feelings here.

    There is not much to defend here about this guy – He is a criminal. He stole money. He admit it. There is nothing noble about crime – regardless of how much money you save people along the way. Interestingly enough, i'll bet a few of these angry posters don't hate robin hood they way they hate this fellow.

    What I really don't understand is the fixation with punishment in our society. Sorry folks, but it is VERY old news that punishment has very little effect on behaviour. If you spank your kid they will probably not act out until you leave the room.
    'positive reinforcement' is what changes behaviour. Pull people over and give them scratch and win tickets if you see them wearing seatbelts, and suddenly the whole town is wearing seatbelts all the time – 20 years later, 19 after the scratch and win tickets are no longer being given out and people are still religiously wearing seatbelts….

    More next paragraph

  • Deep in thought

    I think there is really somthing sadly archaic and perhaps even beastly about human nature that seems to have us 'enjoy' watching others suffer. we know that this person did something very wrong, and for that we want them to endure suffering. Nothing good comes of it. They will not learn any lesson, as we know (basic entrly level psychology classes teach that. In addition basic entry level criminology level classes teach that stricter consequences do not influence behaviour. For example, the year after Canada stopped giving the death penalty, murder rates dropped… People were terrified suddenly everyone and their grandmother would go on killing sprees because of the absence of mega punishments – but that clearly didn't happen. Why? because when someone commits crimes they are not thinking about the negative consequences) it does not influence behaviour.
    Thefore, the only real benefit to punishing people is the pleasure others experience in watching the individual being punished suffer.
    Keep in mind, A) Strict consequences do not influence behaviour {Ask any criminologist). B) Punishment is a very ineffective method of changing behaviour (ask any psychologist).
    more next paragraph

  • Deep in thought

    So why is it people are crying the blues about our justice system?

    Now, i am not in a million years going to stand up for this guy. He agreed to his salary when he took the job. If he was to be making a commission on $ saved, that should have been discussed when he is hired. As far as i am concerned, saving the government that much money was him doing his job.
    The big issue to me, that i see very little discussion on, is the budget spending. I was very taken back by the comment that underspending is about as horrible as over spending because it means budget cuts. This notion causes a horrifying amount of wasteful spending, and indeed, led to this absurd scam. That issue needs some serious attention.
    Just my thoughts.

    • observer

      The entire "problem" started and was "allowed" to continue in order to make budget. Spend it or lose it still persists.

  • http://www.eternityweddingbands.com gold wedding rings

    I really don't get it. How could that happen?

  • Anonymous

    Way to go Paul, or should I say Reggie. Always knew you could do it. Just wished I was around when the money began to roll in. Pisses me off I missed out on the parties, the Sens games, the trips, golf,and all the fun. I chose to live honestly and to think how I could have lived had I followed in your foot steps. You know who I am. Look at the sig. There is only one person knows what that means. We all admired what we thought you had done, but at the same time we knew it couldn’t be true. The real story is actually what we should have expected. You were always a thief. Remember your poker line, “I play to win”, while stealing from your best friends at cards. Nice. I should have figured it out long before anyone else did. I knew just from looking you in the face in the summer of ’98 something was up. Fact is I know you too well and your comments to Macleans are just more of the same old shenanigans. C’mon, Paul like your wife thought that you bought her a half million in jewelery and homes in Turks and Caicos and Florida on govt bonuses and it was all gotten legally. Lets see, couple million govt employees, and consultants out there and your the only one cashing those kind of cheques. Give me a break. Paul, send me some of that cash you’ve got stashed and we’ll call it even. You can find me if you look hard enough. I’ll be waiting. Thanks (remember index finger on side of nose when we make our meet)

  • Just an average Joe

    Get off the band wagon.

    Champagne and others have bought into this notion that Champagne saved DND millions of dollars under his stewardship. The fact is that Champagne occupied a desk at DND during a period when everyone in the world was realizing that is was cheaper to replace a computer or laptop than have a technician repair it.

    Maintenance contracts were cancelled and replaced with the purchasing of fancy new laptops, let's face it every employee was happy to receive the latest and greatest new gadget.

    That left a spending void that Champagne filled with phony invoices.

    Giving yourself credit for the sun coming up every morning is The God complex Champagne refers to.

  • Sad Taxpayer

    I am sorry, but something is not right here. He was able to make a deal with HP to keep, from what I understand is a nice house and have the family expenses paid for while in jail as JDK mentioned. How is this possible, and the Macleans reporter did not clue into this. He steal $100 million and he only spents 16 months and walks to a home and happy family. I have to agree that there is more to this then the great reporting we get from the PR man. Sad, but this is Canada.

  • yodelayeehoo

    Strange response…… are you referring to me? I thought you were a government employee critical of the theft? My posting was for Champagne or Viking or maninthemirror or whatever he's calling himself. I think maybe we have ferreted out the truth here. How many different names are you using here Champagne? As for meeting up….when and where?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/imagefine imagefine

    I apologize. I mixed your e-mail up with maninthemirror. I am definitely a government employee critical of the theft. And I have a lot of friends over at DND who are appalled by what Champagne did and how long it took to catch him.

From Macleans