Travel giant double-billed hotel rooms in refugee accommodation scandal

Corporate Travel Management’s $100 million overcharging scandal and PwC auditor concerns unmasked An Australian travel giant embroiled in a $100 million overcharging scandal for refugee accommodation was invoicing a government for more rooms than a hotel actually had, the ABC can reveal. Brisbane-based Corporate Travel Management, a former share-market darling valued at $2 billion, was also double-billing the UK government during the refugee program or charging for exclusive use of hotels when no exclusivity existed. The overcharging was detailed in a presentation to Corporate Travel, revealed today by the ABC, which also shows the then PwC auditors in 2023 urged some directors to disclose details linked to the overcharging. The matter remained unknown to investors until this year, stunning analysts about why nothing was divulged earlier. Corporate Travel was founded in 1994 by Jamie Pherous, and its share price rose so giddily he became a rich lister who hired Jimmy Barnes to sing at his 50th birthday party on Hamilton Island. The company arranges business trips globally and clients have ranged from Australian parliamentarians to big enterprises such as Wesfarmers. Corporate Travel also ran UK government accommodation programs for people fleeing countries from Ukraine to Afghanistan, at one stage controversially housing refugees on a floating barge. The overbilling scandal emerged in the accommodation work. In 2021, Corporate Travel was contracted to rapidly find 1.4 million nights of accommodation across about 60 UK hotels. But controls, the company later said, were problematic including some government requests coming verbally. Corporate Travel by late 2022 quietly found a gap of almost 50 million British pounds ($96 million) between how much it had billed the UK government for accommodation, and how much the travel company was then paying to the hotels. The gap became a flashpoint in drafting and auditing Corporate Travel's accounts in August 2023. The then auditors gave a 40-plus page presentation with almost six pages flagging UK issues to the board's audit and risk committee, who included company chairman Ewen Crouch. Headlines included referring to accounting to UK government arrangements as a "significant" risk. Corporate Travel has refused to publicly detail how any overcharging occurred while maintaining no evidence of intentional overbilling was uncovered. The presentation details legal advice was sought and what internal investigations found. Problem billing went into five "buckets". One bucket included Corporate Travel incorrectly sending bills, such as twice in the same month, or for more rooms than the actual number of rooms in a hotel. Some were technical, including Corporate Travel having billed the UK government for exclusively securing all a hotel, when the hotel might only charge the company for a lesser amount of rooms used even in an exclusive deal. Other hotel deals were not exclusive, despite Corporate Travel billing the government as such. Corporate Travel also charged for services when there was no evidence of a formal hotel contract being in place and no hotel invoice received for the relevant period. Corporate Travel supposedly reached a secret agreement — later alleged to be fake — with the UK government: the company could keep 22 million British pounds and refund the remaining 28 million British pounds. That refund would supposedly be via measures such as providing services in lieu of actual cash repayments. The auditors wrote a UK Home Office official, whom the ABC has identified as a department procurement veteran, was named as signing that deal. "Management has represented to us that (the official) has the appropriate and required authority in order to commit the Home Office to these financial and contractual arrangements," they noted. A key auditor dispute lay in explaining to investors the supposed 28 million British pounds refund deal. The company had planned on listing the amount among hundreds of millions of dollars in "client payables" liabilities. Management would add "wording in the financial statements to broaden" that term's definition. But the auditors did "not agree" as client payables were usually what was paid to suppliers such as hotels or airlines. It was "more appropriate" to list the liability in a different area with "an explanatory note included given the different nature and materiality of this amount". No such note is in the final accounts, which the auditors signed. Still, changes occurred: the final accounts' definition of "client payables" altered from the previous year to include amounts "where clients did not use the travel services and products, or where services were not rendered". The auditors also questioned classifying as "transactional revenue" the 22.1 million British pounds that Corporate Travel could supposedly keep. They supplied the committee with regulatory disclosure guidelines and said a draft operational review had only limited information about the UK issue's "material impact" on revenue and earnings in Europe, meaning investors might think plump margins there could continue. The subsequent published directors' review does contain caveats such as warning European margins were "unlikely to be sustained". The accounts also explained UK accommodation work had grown, while "transactional revenue" was widened to include margins on accommodation. Then managing director Mr Pherous was not on the committee and left the company on good terms this February. He has not answered ABC queries. He trumpeted Corporate Travel's UK work upon publishing the 2023 results. "We've built up, I guess, three things, a lot of expertise, very good software and process around this, because it's very complicated work," he told analysts. "We've built up a lot of controls as well to make sure it's effective and efficient." The supposed 50 million British pounds overbilling deal from 2023 only emerged this April, when Corporate Travel blamed former UK executive Michael Healy as responsible for handling the client and the signed government-deal letters. It admitted the letters "may not, in fact, be authentic" and the UK government "has no record" of them. Market analysts complained about why nothing earlier had been divulged. "Unbeknownst to the market, issues were identified by (Corporate Travel) in late 2022 with a refund of 28 million British pounds agreed to with customers in July 2023," RBC Capital Markets analyst Wei-Weng Chen told clients. The amount represented almost one-third of company cash and underlying earnings, which "should meet most materiality thresholds for disclosure", he wrote. The ABC put questions and presentation details to Corporate Travel and PwC. Both declined to comment. Peter Carey, a Deakin University auditing expert, said, in general, auditors and companies could have "constant argy-bargy" about disclosures. He said auditors might acquiesce on initial recommendations for reasons ranging from concluding an issue was ultimately not material, to being afraid of "upsetting the client". He added auditors could contact third parties, such as banks, to verify items related to accounts, rather than rely on management's word. They may be obligated to make such contact for items of material value, to show reasonable care, Professor Carey said. Corporate Travel's problems have ballooned; it may now undo up to 128 million British pounds in revenue after probing contracts between 2019 and 2026, and $15 million in Australia-New Zealand related to rebates. The company, 14-time winner of Australia's travel management company award, is endeavouring to file delayed accounts to avoid removal from the share market. It even this week won a 28 million pound UK government contract, helping Afghans, who worked with British forces, resettle. [Image text:] HOTEL >AUAzU> ctm pwe 14