Every obstacle seemed like another reason to push harder.
Every request for clarification felt like interference.
And every warning from a lawyer sounded like something that could be corrected after the signatures were obtained.
At one point, a member of the documentation team informed him that an old signature image could not be used to certify a current authorization.
Julian instructed the employee to leave the matter with his external advisers.
The employee objected.
Then withdrew from the assignment.
Another staff member later received the document.
By the time the current certification appeared in the execution package, multiple people had handled versions of it.
Julian wanted to believe that complexity would protect him.
But the records were not disappearing.
Emails remained.
Draft histories remained.
Access logs remained.
And the independent investigators were now asking questions nobody had expected to hear.
The next morning, Julian attempted another strategy.
He gave a statement to a business journalist through a public-relations adviser.
The statement claimed that the dining-room incident had been misrepresented online, that the documents were preliminary, and that an employee without legal qualifications had created confusion by offering unauthorized interpretations.
It did not name Imani directly.
But the implication was unmistakable.
The waitress had misunderstood.
The billionaire's son was merely trying to keep a transaction on schedule.
And the entire scandal was the result of an unfortunate public misunderstanding.
The statement circulated widely.
Several commentators repeated it.
Others questioned why a restaurant worker had access to confidential documents.
Imani saw the coverage during her lunch break.
For a moment, she felt physically ill.
She called Tessa.
“They're saying I made a mistake.”
The lawyer remained calm.
“That's a public statement, not a finding.”
Imani looked toward the screen.
“But people believe it.”
“Some do.”
“I don't have the resources to fight a billionaire's communications team.”
Tessa took a breath.
“You don't have to win an internet argument. We need accurate records and qualified review.”
Imani closed her eyes.
For several seconds, she was silent.
Then asked, “What if they convince everyone I wasn't supposed to read the documents?”
The lawyer answered carefully.
“Your right to identify an apparent discrepancy isn't determined by whether your employer hired you as a translator. The relevant questions include what you observed, whether your statements were accurate, and whether any legal obligations applied.”
Imani nodded slowly.
Tessa continued.
“We're arranging for a qualified independent translation review. Let the documents speak for themselves.”
That phrase stayed with Imani.
Let the documents speak.
It reminded her of the reason she'd loved translation work in the first place.
The truth wasn't always dramatic.