The attorney answered carefully.
“That's one possibility. We need an expert examination before reaching conclusions.”
The young woman looked toward the financing document.
For months, she'd believed the developer was exaggerating how close the transaction was to completion.
Now she faced a more serious possibility.
Someone may have taken her genuine signature from one document and reproduced it on another to make an unapproved property arrangement appear legitimate.
That could explain why financial institutions were receiving information suggesting the passage rights were substantially secured.
It could explain why the architect had been told the restaurant was expected to become available.
And it could explain why the developer seemed so confident that the young woman would eventually surrender the property.
She leaned back.
For a long moment, she said nothing.
Then she looked toward her attorney.
“I want an independent examination.”
He nodded.
“Absolutely.”
“And I want the bank notified that we dispute this document.”
“We can prepare an appropriate notice.”
She looked at the accountant.
“Preserve every version we have. Every email. Every attachment.”
He nodded.
Then she turned toward the window.
Below, the restaurant's dining room lights glowed warmly.
Customers were arriving.
Employees were preparing meals.
And life continued as though nothing extraordinary had happened.
But upstairs, the young owner had just discovered that someone might have been using her name to support a transaction she had never approved.
She closed the folder.
Then whispered, “This isn't just a bad business proposal anymore.”
The first independent document review confirmed several important facts.
The seller acknowledgment wasn't part of the restaurant's authorized transaction files.
No corporate approval supported its execution.
No evidence showed that the young owner had knowingly signed it.
And the signature image displayed features consistent with reproduction from an earlier document.
A qualified examiner cautioned that determining exactly how the signature had been placed would require the best available original files and associated electronic records.
But the preliminary evidence was serious enough to justify immediate action.
The restaurant's attorney sent formal notices to the relevant financial and transaction parties disputing the document's authenticity and authority.
The bank confirmed that it would not rely on the disputed acknowledgment without further verification.
The lender associated with the hotel project also began reviewing its materials.
Meanwhile, the young owner's legal team requested preservation of relevant communications and document histories.
The billionaire's legal department received the notice on a Monday morning.
His chief legal officer called him immediately.
The billionaire was in Brussels attending a meeting concerning another hotel acquisition.
He listened as the officer explained the issue.
“A document with the seller's signature?”