And Daniel’s admissions about the transfers he had authorized.
The defense challenged portions of the evidence. Its lawyers argued that the transactions were business decisions, that the documents had been prepared in the ordinary course of operations, and that I had misunderstood the company’s internal procedures.
Some of those arguments required careful consideration. A financial irregularity was not automatically proof of fraud, and the court had to distinguish between documented facts, competing interpretations, and allegations that remained unproven.
But the evidence was more substantial than it had been when the lawsuit was filed.
During testimony, Arthur was asked about the email instructing staff to prepare documents before the signature issue had been resolved.
He claimed the message had been taken out of context.
The questioning continued.
He was shown another email, then a financial record, then a timeline prepared from the company’s own documents.
His answers became less certain.
At one point, the judge interrupted.
