They asked whether she signed the authorization.
He said the bank handled the paperwork.
They asked why the transaction instructions named an entity absent from the approved vendor list.
He said the arrangement was temporary.
For nearly an hour, he answered questions without providing the one document that mattered.
A valid authorization.
Finally, the lead investigator asked whether he'd received a written instruction from the CEO approving the eighty-six-million-dollar release.
The CFO hesitated.
Then answered.
"Not in the final form."
The investigator looked up.
"What does that mean?"
The CFO shifted in his chair.
He explained that the chair had discussed possible financing options and that he believed she supported a solution that protected the campus schedule.
The investigator nodded.
"Did she specifically authorize this transfer?"
The CFO stared at the table.
For several seconds, he remained quiet.
Then whispered.
"No."
The investigator noted the answer.
Then asked why the bank's authorization package carried her signature.
The CFO looked toward his lawyer.
For the first time, he seemed to understand that the difference between supporting a project and authorizing a transfer was about to determine his future.
The financial incentive became clearer when investigators examined the CFO's private business interests.
Through a family investment trust, he held a potential participation right in a consulting entity associated with the developer that controlled the adjoining parcel.
The arrangement promised a substantial success-based payment if the hospital completed a financing transaction involving the land.
The CFO had not disclosed the interest through the foundation's conflict-of-interest process.
His lawyer argued that the interest was preliminary and had not produced an actual payment.
The investigators acknowledged that distinction.
But the arrangement still mattered.
It meant the CFO potentially stood to benefit personally if the foundation committed to the transaction.
The same transaction he was supposed to evaluate independently.
The same transaction he urged the bank to process rapidly.
And the same transaction that carried a signature the chair denied providing.
The CFO insisted he'd intended to protect the hospital project.
Perhaps part of him believed that.
People could convince themselves of many things when their personal interests became entangled with professional obligations.
But the evidence suggested his urgency wasn't motivated solely by concern for the construction schedule.
The branch manager's relationship to the development entity made the situation worse.
A relative of the manager held a beneficial interest in one of the companies involved.
The manager himself had been offered a contingent consulting role after the deal closed.