Others declined.
But the effort revealed how Richard viewed the world.
If he could not control the woman directly, he would pressure the institutions around her.
He had used that strategy for decades.
A difficult executive could be threatened with lost financing.
A reluctant vendor could be squeezed through contracts.
A reporter could be denied access.
A board member could be persuaded that resistance carried financial consequences.
He expected the same tactics to work now.
What he did not understand was that the airline's ownership structure had been designed to withstand exactly that kind of pressure.
The chairwoman had not purchased controlling ownership through a fragile personal arrangement.
The transaction was supported by long-term institutional investors, a clear governance framework, and financing agreements that limited arbitrary interference.
Richard's companies were commercially significant.
They were not indispensable.
More importantly, the independent board members had already been briefed on the investigation before the flight.
They knew the review was serious.
They knew evidence preservation was underway.
And they understood that trying to intimidate the chairwoman would only increase scrutiny.
Richard's pressure campaign produced the opposite of what he intended.
A creditor contacted the airline's general counsel.
An institutional investor forwarded Richard's communications to the board.
And a consulting firm associated with his investment group requested legal advice after receiving a formal records-preservation notice.
The investigation expanded.
Within two weeks, the external reviewers identified a series of suspicious payments routed through a premium travel consultancy.
The consultancy appeared legitimate.
It provided services to wealthy travelers.
Hotel reservations.
Luxury ground transportation.
Private terminal arrangements.
Corporate itinerary management.
But its accounting records contained entries that did not correspond to actual services.
Some payments originated with companies affiliated with Richard's investment group.
Others came from business intermediaries.
Several coincided with unauthorized access to passenger records.
The investigators developed a working theory.
Certain airline employees may have been providing confidential travel information to outside parties in exchange for payments or commercial benefits.
Those outside parties could use the information to identify business negotiations, personal movements, or confidential meetings.
If true, the conduct could expose the airline and the individuals involved to significant legal consequences.
But the theory needed corroboration.
The chairwoman insisted on that.
No accusations without evidence.
No leaks designed to win public sympathy.
No shortcuts.
She wanted a complete account.
The crucial witness appeared eighteen days after the flight.
He was a former employee of the premium travel consultancy.