The caller was Daniel Mercer, the administrator of her father's trust.
"Evelyn," he said, sounding troubled. "I've received a letter from your attorney."
"Yes."
"I need to tell you that someone contacted me yesterday concerning the property."
"Who?"
"Adrian."
"What did he want?"
"He said there might be a dispute over your ability to occupy the house while the company investigation was underway. He asked whether the trust could temporarily recognize him as the sole authorized resident."
Evelyn gripped the phone.
"And what did you tell him?"
"That the company investigation had nothing to do with the trust unless the governing documents provided otherwise. I refused to make any changes without legal advice."
Relief moved through her so quickly that she nearly cried.
"Thank you."
"There's something else."
She straightened.
"What?"
"Adrian claimed you had already agreed to move out."
"I did not."
"I suspected that might be the case. But he was very confident."
Evelyn looked at the trust agreement lying beside her laptop.
"Daniel, did he provide any documents?"
"Only a letter from a lawyer representing him personally. It referred to an internal corporate inquiry and suggested that your continued occupation might create a conflict."
"Can you send the letter to Rachel?"
"With your authorization, yes."
"I authorize it."
After the call, Evelyn informed Rachel.
The attorney responded within minutes.
Good. Keep everything. We now have a documented reason to challenge the restriction.
Evelyn sat back.
The day had not restored her job, her reputation, or her marriage.
But the first door had opened.
And for the first time since the ballroom, she began to believe that the story Adrian had told about her might not be the only story anyone would hear.
The first formal response from Hartwell Development arrived two days later.
It was six pages long.
The letter accused Evelyn of failing to exercise proper oversight over financial transactions associated with several development projects. It stated that the board had identified suspicious payments to three consulting firms and that her executive approval appeared on multiple transaction records.
The company denied that her removal was retaliatory.
It also requested that she refrain from making public statements about the investigation.
Evelyn read the letter twice.
Then she placed it on Rachel's desk.
"They've already decided what happened," she said.
"Perhaps. But this is their position, not a final finding."
"They're saying I approved the payments."
"They're saying your approval appears on the records. Those are not necessarily the same thing as proving that you knowingly authorized fraudulent transactions."
Rachel highlighted several paragraphs.
The three companies were named Alder Bridge Consulting, Meridian Strategic Services, and Northlake Advisory.
None was familiar to Evelyn.
She recognized the project codes attached to the payments, however. They belonged to developments she had overseen personally.
One was a residential complex near the old railway district.
Another was a commercial building beside the river.
The third was the Northbridge waterfront project.
"These projects all had legitimate contractors," Evelyn said. "We paid architects, engineers, surveyors, and construction consultants. But I've never heard of these firms."
"Could any have been subcontractors?"
"Possibly. I would need to see the underlying contracts."
Rachel made a note.
"We'll request the records through the appropriate channels. In the meantime, let's examine the information in the letter itself."
She pointed to a table listing six payments.
The dates ranged across four months.
Each payment had a transaction number, a project reference, and an approval code attributed to Evelyn.
The amounts were substantial but not identical.
One was just below the threshold requiring a second executive signature.
Another had been divided into two payments processed on consecutive days.
Evelyn leaned closer.
"That's strange."
"What?"
"The second and third transactions. If they were part of the same contract, they should have been recorded together. Splitting them would require a documented reason."
"Could there have been one?"
"Yes. But the letter doesn't provide it."
Rachel examined the figures.
"Would you normally have approved a transaction of this size?"
"Not without a contract and a project director's confirmation."
"Could the approval code have been generated automatically?"
"Some codes were system-generated. But the system still required the authorized user to confirm the transaction."
"Then we'll need the audit trail to establish how the approvals were entered."
Evelyn nodded.
She did not want to leap from suspicious patterns to accusations.
That was precisely what Adrian had done to her.
Instead, she asked Rachel to help create a list of specific records needed to test the company's claims.
They included the original invoices, contracts, payment instructions, approval logs, vendor registration documents, and correspondence relating to each transaction.