They had prepared a factual account of her observations, identified the relevant records, and requested that appropriate authorities and oversight bodies preserve the original documents.
She had not expected a response so quickly.
The attorney asked whether she would be willing to provide a detailed statement.
The waitress agreed.
Two days later, she attended a meeting in a modest conference room downtown.
Three people were waiting.
One was an American attorney with decades of experience in corporate investigations.
Another was a Korean American forensic accountant who had been retained to review transaction records.
The third was a member of Haneul's independent board committee.
The director was a quiet Korean businessman in his late fifties who had spent years overseeing international operations.
He introduced himself politely.
Then he studied the waitress with visible curiosity.
“You're the person who identified the translation discrepancy?”
“Yes.”
“I was told your consulting firm rejected your conclusions.”
“They removed me from the project.”
“Why?”
“I would like to know that myself.”
The director did not smile.
He slid a document across the table.
It was a Korean-language summary of the acquisition's compliance review.
The waitress recognized it immediately.
The document had been prepared after her dismissal.
According to its contents, all significant temperature-control concerns had been resolved.
The director tapped the last page.
“Please read the certification.”
She leaned forward.
Near the bottom was a short declaration stating that the bilingual technical provisions had been reviewed and verified by a qualified language specialist.
Below the declaration was a digital signature.
The waitress felt the blood drain from her face.
The signature belonged to her.
Or rather, it appeared to.
Her name and professional credentials had been attached to a conclusion she had never approved.
She read the certification again.
Then she looked at the director.
“I didn't sign this.”
The attorney leaned forward.
“Are you certain?”
“Completely.”
“Could you have authorized someone else to sign on your behalf?”
“No.”
“Could this be an earlier version?”
“No. I never approved language saying these issues were resolved.”
The forensic accountant asked her to explain.
She described the original technical annex, the disputed definitions, the missing supporting records, and the thirty-seven-page memorandum she had submitted.
As she spoke, the accountant took careful notes.
When she finished, the room was silent.
The director looked troubled.
“If what you're telling us is correct,” he said, “the board may have received a materially misleading representation.”