The summaries included technician references, work descriptions, and completion dates.
But the underlying supporting records raised a question.
The same individual appeared to have completed separate tasks at two facilities far enough apart that the sequence required explanation.
There could have been an innocent reason.
A data-entry error.
A shared personnel identifier.
A mistake during migration from one record system to another.
The reviewers considered those possibilities.
They requested the original work packages, personnel records relevant to the work, and supporting confirmation from the outside provider.
The response was incomplete.
A second review found that several component identifiers did not reconcile with the available inventory and maintenance records.
Again, the findings didn't establish that anyone had deliberately falsified information.
But they were serious enough that the responsible technical personnel recommended restricting the affected aircraft from further operations until their status could be verified under the applicable requirements.
Crestline complied.
The restriction was announced internally.
The company began arranging qualified inspections and any necessary corrective work.
Then the outside maintenance provider received formal notice of the expanded review.
The chief financial officer was summoned to another board meeting.
He arrived carrying a folder filled with explanations.
But this time, the directors were less interested in reassurance.
They wanted evidence.
One director asked how the provider had been selected.
The financial officer said it offered competitive pricing.
Another asked whether the selection process had included independent technical evaluation.
He replied that the maintenance department had been involved.
A third asked whether any executive had a personal financial relationship with the provider or its owners.
The officer froze.
For a brief moment, nobody moved.
Then he looked toward the company's legal counsel.
“What exactly are you asking?”
The director repeated the question.
The financial officer adjusted his tie.
He explained that a consulting company connected to a member of his extended family had previously performed unrelated business services for an entity associated with the outside provider.
The relationship might have been permissible if appropriately disclosed and reviewed.
But the board couldn't locate a complete disclosure in the relevant conflict-of-interest records.
The room became silent.
The billionaire looked toward him.
“You never told me that.”
The financial officer swallowed.
“I didn't consider it material.”
The billionaire stared.
For years, he'd trusted this man.
He had approved bonuses.