The transaction investigation eventually brought the name Martin Pell back into my life.
At first, Jade Harbor's lawyers focused on the document history.
The approved version.
The revised version.
The transmittal records.
The internal approvals.
The electronic acknowledgments.
They asked Northbridge to preserve relevant materials and cooperate within the applicable legal framework.
The company engaged outside counsel.
It denied knowingly approving an unauthorized disbursement.
And it maintained that its employees had acted according to the information available at the time.
Those positions had to be examined.
The investigation didn't assume the entire firm was corrupt because my supervisor had treated me badly.
Most employees had no connection to the disputed schedule.
Some may not have known the transaction existed.
Others might have relied on records they believed were authentic.
The responsibility for any misconduct needed to be determined individually.
The review identified an acknowledgment in the Revision 19 package that appeared to attribute a completed bilingual comparison to me.
My initials were included.
The acknowledgment suggested that the revised wording had been checked against the supporting materials.
That mattered.
A reviewer unfamiliar with the history might reasonably assume the discrepancy had been examined and resolved.
But I had not approved Revision 19.
I had reported a concern about it.
Rachel asked me to review the acknowledgment.
I stared at the page.
For several seconds, I couldn't speak.
Then I looked toward her.
"I never signed off on that."
She nodded.
"Are you certain?"
"Yes."
I pointed toward the date.
"That was after I was removed from the transaction unit."
Rachel examined it.
Then asked whether someone could have legitimately used my initials as a reference to earlier work.
I considered the possibility.
It was important not to jump to conclusions.
But the wording appeared to describe a completed review of the revised document.
That wasn't what I'd done.
My report identified an unresolved issue.
I took a breath.
"I can testify to my own actions. I raised the alert, and I did not clear the discrepancy."
Rachel nodded.
"Good. That's the distinction."
The records were submitted for independent examination.
Several weeks later, investigators obtained information suggesting the acknowledgment had been inserted after my role on the project ended.
The exact circumstances remained under review.
But the evidence strengthened the concern that someone had represented an unresolved discrepancy as completed.
Then Martin Pell's name appeared in the approval history.
He had authorized closure of the internal alert.
He had participated in discussions involving Whitmore's transaction team.
And he had communicated with external advisers about the revised schedule.
None of those facts alone proved he intended to facilitate fraud.
Supervisors often approved case closures.
Senior personnel communicated with clients.
And transaction structures changed during negotiations.
But taken together with the missing approvals and the inaccurate acknowledgment, the records raised serious questions.
Martin was asked to explain.
At first, he said the change had been properly authorized by commercial representatives.
Then investigators asked him to identify the authorization.
He referred to discussions.
They asked for records.
He described an understanding.