JULY 2016 FORBES ASIA | 65that to 2015. If Pudur Corp. did turn in results at that
level last year, it would have topped every listed company
in Malaysia in both revenue and net profits—making it
bigger, for example, than corporate giants Sime Darby,
Tenaga Nasional and Malayan Banking. Pudur maintains
that Pudur Corp.’s revenue and profits are “of course
higher” than those public companies. “We are privately
held ... there are a lot of companies like us.”
The two names who signed off on the 2015 audited re-
port do not show up in the membership directories of the
Malaysian Institute of Accountants or any other places
online. They could not be reached for comment. Like-
wise, the two principals of the Kuala Lumpur accounting
firm that audited the financials in Celframe’s 2014 annual
report, LM Associates (now called LMNG International
after a merger), are not listed in the Malaysian Institute’s
directory, and neither is LMNG. The two also do not
show up on LinkedIn or elsewhere online, other than on
the LMNG website, and that site gives no physical ad-
dress for the firm. They did not respond when asked to
comment.
The institute said in an e-mail that “all four individu-
als are not registered as MIA members” and that by law
“no one can hold himself out or practice as an accountant
unless he is registered as a member.” Pudur maintains,
however, that “when we hire an auditor, we hire them
because they are in practice.” Celframe became a British
Virgin Islands company in 2014 and maintains that it was
no longer subject to Malaysia’s accounting laws, but it
could not say where the auditors were registered.
The 2015 financials purport to show that Celframe
produces the bulk of the group’s revenue—$8.3 billion—
and profits—$2.5 billion. If that’s right that would make
Celframe the largest technology company in Malaysia.
The country’s largest listed company in the sector, Hong
Leong Industries, generated only $616 million in revenue
last year. What’s more, Pikom, Malaysia’s IT industry
trade association, says Celframe has not been a member
for more than five years. Pudur cites changes in the as-
sociation’s goals and the time needed to remain active as
reasons for why his company is not a member.
Now Pudur says he’s restructuring his group. He
maintains that he’s splitting his technology business
into four entities to prepare for a move to Silicon Val-
ley. He says the first to set up offices in California will
be Browsify, which the Celframe site describes as an
Internet of Things company and Pudur says has raised
$45 million from family members and friends; an online
search turned up little on the company besides a brief
pitch for more investors on his website. “Every banker
told us Asia-based companies are valued badly,” he says.
“They said, ‘Move to the Valley—your valuation will
change drastically.’ ”
He says he was in talks with Stephen Gillett, a former
chief operating officer of Symantec and now the senior
leader of X, a Google research and development unit, as
a potential chief executive for Browsify. Gillett, however,
said in an e-mail, “I am not associated or familiar to any
detail with these businesses and have not met Mr. Pudur
in person.”
Responses from other associates he recommended we
contact raised more red flags. In some cases the people
may not exist. Azrina Binti Yaccob—who spelled her sur-
name differently from her e-mail display name and said
she was the procurement officer in Malaysia’s Ministry
of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives & Consumerism—said
that in Putrajaya state alone, her ministry had purchased
750 licenses for Celframe Office’s Small Business edition
since 2009. She endorsed the product as “stable, [with]
good training for staff and very good onsite support.” But
when asked for her official e-mail address in order to
verify that she works for the ministry, Yaccob wouldn’tdisclose it. She said that under a ministry directive, it
could be used only for Official Secrets Act-related mat-
ters and not for testimonials or endorsements. Reached
by telephone, a ministry spokesman says no one by that
name works there.
Another person cited as a customer, Miloslav Ivan-
ovich—who said he had worked as senior vice president,
technology, at Russian regional airline Transaero—said
the company had deployed Celframe Office since 2009
and last year did $38 million worth of business with
the company. He detailed an anecdote involving Pudur
during a Celframe training session: “He took [over] a
two-hour class when one of the trainers was sick on user
interface and deployment planning. I found his technol-
ogy knowledge in-depth for a CEO.” He couldn’t provide
verification of his identity. The airline went out of busi-
ness last October.
Celframe says one of its customers is Shanwei munici-
pality in China. The contact there is Wang Zhen-Ying,
but instead of an official e-mail address, Wang used Chi-
nese e-mail provider 126.com. Wang claimed the cen-
tral government asked his municipality to use Celframe
software, but Beijing generally requires all government
offices to use software from Chinese companies. In a“EVERY BANKER TOLD US
ASIA-BASED COMPANIES ARE
VALUED BADLY. THEY SAID,
‘MOVE TO THE VALLEY—YOUR
VALUATIONS WILL CHANGE.’”