“Then we need to inform the inspector general's office.”
He looked relieved.
“That's what I was going to recommend.”
The CEO closed the report.
She wasn't frightened easily.
But she understood the difference between confidence and recklessness.
She had employees.
A family.
And responsibilities that extended far beyond her own safety.
She wasn't interested in provoking a confrontation with anyone.
She wanted the audit completed through lawful channels.
She wanted the missing vehicle cases examined.
And she wanted people who had suffered financial harm to receive meaningful answers.
So she agreed to additional security precautions.
Her company preserved relevant messages.
Her movements were coordinated more carefully.
And her legal team informed the city's independent oversight office about the suspicious inquiries.
Two days later, an investigator contacted her.
The woman worked with the police department's Internal Affairs Bureau on a joint integrity investigation involving municipal vehicle seizures.
She was Black American, in her early forties, with short natural hair, a calm expression, and a reputation for questioning evidence more rigorously than most suspects questioned their own excuses.
She had been examining the towing contractor for several months.
The records from Lattice Integrity were exactly the kind of independent evidence her team needed.
The investigator requested a confidential meeting.
The CEO agreed.
And that meeting changed the course of the investigation.
The meeting took place inside a secure conference room at a municipal oversight office.
The CEO arrived wearing a simple tailored black suit.
Her legal counsel accompanied her.
Across the table sat the Internal Affairs investigator, a senior financial investigator, and an attorney assigned to the independent oversight process.
They introduced themselves.
Then began reviewing the available information.
The CEO's company had documented thirty-eight suspicious vehicle-disposal events.
The investigators already possessed complaints involving several of the same storage facilities.
They also had information about financial relationships between certain police personnel and employees of Harborline Recovery.
But the evidence remained incomplete.
Some records were available only through the city's administrative systems.
Others required cooperation from witnesses.
And certain suspected payments had not yet been connected reliably to specific official acts.
The CEO presented her company's preliminary audit.
She was careful with her language.
She didn't declare every discrepancy fraudulent.
She distinguished original records from later summaries.
She identified events whose timestamps couldn't be reconciled.
And she explained which conclusions required additional evidence.
The Internal Affairs investigator listened closely.
Then asked, “Could someone with administrative access alter the summary without changing the original audit events?”