the hotel group, including the older attorney and younger finance executive. The billionaire joined through a secure connection from Shanghai. The property investor appeared with separate counsel, while the restaurant group's suspended finance director attended his own interview later under the procedures established by the independent committee.
The purpose was not to hold a trial. The participants were not a court, and their meeting could not decide criminal guilt. They were there to establish which documents were authentic, which contracts had been authorized, what money had been committed, and whether any form of commercial partnership remained possible. The chairwoman wanted the record to be clear enough that directors could act without guessing.
The older attorney began with the two contract versions. He identified the original licensing terms approved for negotiation and the later Integrated Asset Support appendix. His independent team had reconstructed file histories and found that the revision originated with a development consultant working alongside the property investor. It was then transmitted to employees in the restaurant group's finance office, where it received an execution label despite lacking required approvals.
The property investor objected that the document remained a draft. The attorney agreed that the document had not become binding merely through circulation. But he asked why the covering memorandum described the additions as already approved. The investor said an associate had prepared the memorandum in haste. The attorney asked which associate. The investor could not provide a reliable answer that morning.
The foundation trustees submitted original meeting minutes, contemporaneous correspondence, and copies of their restricted-use agreements. The disputed resolution did not appear in the foundation's records. Two purported signatories denied authorizing it. The third signature belonged to the deceased founder and resembled an older acknowledgment letter rather than any available approval from the relevant date. An outside document examiner reported irregularities requiring further investigation. The evidence strongly supported treating the resolution as inauthentic, but identifying its creator still depended on witnesses and source records.
The property investor's lawyer argued that the company had relied on information provided by outside consultants. The chairwoman's counsel asked whether those consultants were identified in the due-diligence file. Some were. Others worked through subcontractors. The committee ordered the document chain preserved and recommended that potentially fraudulent submissions be referred to the appropriate authorities for independent consideration.