Chapter 3 - The Audit That Had Been Avoided
Dana Cho did not care about pie.
That was why Carmine trusted her.
She was a forensic accountant from Houston with no family connection to New Orleans.
No Orsini history.
No Bellini friendships.
No nostalgia for Lucia.
No resentment about Celeste.
She asked for:
bank statements.
vendor ledgers.
petty-cash logs.
foundation minutes.
insurance claims.
tax records.
employment files.
Magnolia Event Supply records if available.
Then she said:
“Fourteen years is old.”
Carmine answered:
“Meaning?”
“Meaning some records are gone legitimately.”
He hated already.
Then:
“Missing records are not proof of destruction.”
Good.
No conspiracy from absence.
Magnolia Event Supply had dissolved ten years earlier.
Louis Vella died five years ago.
Gerard was alive.
Bank records beyond standard retention were incomplete.
But the Orsini family office had kept scanned vendor packets because of a later insurance review.
That helped.
Dana began reconstructing.
The alleged $38,420 was not one theft.
It was:
duplicate rental invoices.
cash reimbursements.
late-event purchases.
two deposits reversed and reissued.
one missing cash envelope.
Messy.
Then the first major finding.
Six duplicate Magnolia invoices were paid twice.
Total:
$24,880.
Where did second payments go?
Same Magnolia account.
Not Celeste.
Then Magnolia transferred money onward?
Old bank statements from company unavailable.
But Orsini records proved Celeste never received those payments directly.
Could she have received cash later from Magnolia?
Possible.
No evidence.
Then cash reimbursements.
Gerard’s memo attributed $8,640 to Celeste because her initials appeared on reconciliation sheets.
Dana compared signatures.
Some sheets:
CB in blue ink.
Others:
CB in black block letters.
Celeste’s known initials from timecards curved differently.
Not forensic proof alone.
A document examiner compared.
Four of eleven questioned initials were inconsistent with Celeste’s known handwriting.
Three were indeterminate.
Four likely hers.
What did the four likely genuine sheets represent?
Emergency grocery purchases and kitchen tips.
Supported by receipts.
Not theft.
Then missing cash envelope:
$4,900 from a benefit auction.
Custody log showed:
event coordinator handed envelope to Gerard’s assistant, not Celeste.
Why was it attributed to kitchen?
Because funds originated at dessert auction table managed by kitchen volunteers.
Weak.
Then the insurance claim.
The foundation’s fidelity coverage reimbursed $31,000 after Gerard reported employee dishonesty.
Insurer file still existed.
Who was named suspected employee?
Celeste.
Did insurer investigate independently?
Limited.
They relied on employer audit and signed statement from Anthony Orsini.
No police report required under policy.
Then Dana said:
“This is bad process.”
Carmine asked:
“Fraud?”
“Maybe.”
Then:
“Against Celeste?”
“No evidence yet.”
Then:
“By Gerard?”
“Conflict and misrepresentation are possible. I need more.”
Again.
Time.
Then Gerard interview.
He came with lawyer.
Good.
No intimidation.
The meeting happened in Rachel’s office.
Carmine did not attend at first.
Dana asked:
“Why was Magnolia’s ownership not disclosed?”
Gerard said:
“It was not material.”
“Your cousin owned the vendor.”
“Louis was a distant cousin.”
“First cousin.”
Gerard shrugged.
“In New Orleans everyone is someone’s cousin.”
Cute.
Not answer.
Then:
“Did you approve Magnolia invoices?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know duplicate invoices were paid?”
“Afterward.”
“Who discovered?”
“Celeste raised a question. My office confirmed.”
There.
That matched Lucia’s letter.
Then:
“Why did your audit identify Celeste if she discovered duplicate invoices?”
Gerard leaned back.
“Because thieves sometimes report anomalies to create cover.”
Possible in abstract.
Evidence?
“The initials. The cash. Her access.”
Dana asked:
“Any unexplained deposits in her accounts?”
“We did not have access.”
“Any confession?”
“No.”
“Witness seeing her take money?”
“No.”
“Why no outside auditor?”
“Anthony declined.”
“Did you recommend against outside review?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“Donor confidence.”
Then:
“Did you tell Anthony your cousin owned Magnolia?”
Gerard paused.
“I don’t remember.”
Dana slid a foundation conflict-of-interest form.
Gerard had signed annually.
Related-party disclosure blank.
That mattered.
Then:
“Did Louis give you money?”
“No.”
“Gifts?”
“Family gifts.”
“What kind?”
“Christmas. Weddings.”
Then:
“Any payment tied to Orsini business?”
“No.”
Could be true.
Then Dana produced an archived calendar.
Gerard visited Magnolia’s bank three times during the nine-month period? Too speculative. Avoid.
Better another record:
Magnolia invoices were mailed to Gerard's office directly, not kitchen, under standing instructions.
That contradicted memo claiming they “originated from kitchen office.”
Dana showed email:
Louis, send all event invoices straight to me so kitchen doesn't lose them.
Signed Gerard.
There.
Then:
“Why did your memo say the duplicate forms originated in the kitchen?”
Gerard read.
His face changed slightly.
“Because copies were found there.”
But originals did not originate there.
Language manipulated.
Then Rachel entered.
“Mr. Vella, did you draft the blacklist notice?”
Gerard’s lawyer objected to term.
“Staffing restriction.”
Fine.
Gerard admitted.
Why include family?
He said:
“Celeste threatened to tell people we framed her.”
Did Nell exist then? She was 13 perhaps. Immediate family meant husband and teenage daughter.
“What threat did the daughter make?”
None.
Then:
“Why restrict her?”
“Risk.”
There.
Her blood.
Then Carmine joined.
Against Rachel’s preference, but scheduled for final fifteen minutes.
Gerard saw him.
“You look like Anthony.”
Carmine sat.
“I’m told that when people want me to make his decisions.”
Gerard did not smile.
Then Carmine asked:
“Did my mother believe Celeste?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“She liked her.”
Same.
Then:
“Could she have been right?”
Gerard leaned forward.
“Carmine, your mother was a wonderful woman. She did not understand financial controls.”
Dana spoke from side.
“She understood duplicate invoice numbers.”
Gerard looked annoyed.
Then Carmine asked:
“Did Celeste steal?”
Gerard said:
“Yes.”
No hesitation.
“Can you prove it now?”
Gerard’s face tightened.
“I proved it then.”
That was the problem.
Then after he left, Dana said:
“He may genuinely believe his conclusion.”
Carmine frowned.
“You think he didn’t steal?”
“I think certainty is not evidence.”
Then:
“Related-party nondisclosure is established. Misleading audit language appears established. Whether he personally diverted funds is not.”
Good.
Then a new lead.
Odette remembered an event coordinator:
Marianne LeBlanc.
Retired.
Alive in Metairie.
She agreed to interview.
Marianne had worked six benefits.
She said:
Gerard’s office often told kitchen to advance cash for last-minute vendor needs.
Celeste complained receipts arrived late.
Magnolia deliveries were sometimes smaller than invoices.
Did Marianne see theft?
“No.”
Then:
“Did you ever hear Celeste threaten Gerard?”
“Yes.”
What words?
“I’m going to Lucia.”
Not:
pay me.
Not:
I’ll expose family.
She intended report.
Then Marianne said something else.
After Celeste was fired, Gerard asked staff to sign statements saying she handled all event cash.
Marianne refused.
Why?
“Because she didn’t.”
Did that statement appear in audit?
No.
Then:
“Did anyone retaliate?”
She stopped getting Orsini events.
Could be coincidence.
Maybe.
Then an old email from Marianne to Odette surfaced in archive:
I won't sign Gerard's version. I gave the auction envelope to Peter.
Peter Vella?
No.
Peter Romano? Let's choose Peter Landry, Gerard's assistant.
Alive?
Maybe died. Could interview.
Peter Landry now ran bookkeeping firm.
He agreed via lawyer.
He remembered envelope.
He gave it to Gerard.
Not Celeste.
Did Gerard acknowledge?
“Yes.”
Then what happened?
“I don’t know.”
There.
The missing $4,900 passed into Gerard’s custody.
Not proof he stole.
But direct contradiction.
Then Dana issued preliminary conclusion:
The original internal audit did not establish Celeste Baptiste’s theft by reliable evidence. Several material assertions were unsupported or misleading. Related-party vendor conflict was undisclosed. At least one cash item attributed to Celeste was last documented in family-office custody.
Strong.
Not yet:
Gerard stole $38,420.
Then Carmine asked:
“What can we say publicly?”
Rachel answered:
“Nothing until Celeste decides whether she wants anything said.”
Good.
The harmed person was alive.
Then Nell’s employment.
Independent background review under Brisco/Baptiste found:
no criminal record.
no financial misconduct.
references strong.
three years satisfactory performance.
application omission confirmed.
The staffing agency recommended termination under policy.
Maya Landry argued:
the omitted name was directly tied to a family-based adverse notation that should never have existed.
Carmine asked Rachel:
“What would happen to another employee?”
Rachel said:
“Likely discipline or termination depending materiality.”
Then:
“So we cannot keep her because her mother was wronged.”
“Correct.”
Nor fire her automatically to prove neutrality.
They needed consistent process.
HR reviewed precedent.
Three prior household employees had omitted prior names:
one due recent marriage confusion—corrected, no discipline.
one to conceal prior termination—terminated.
one due domestic-violence protective identity—retained with confidential correction.
Nell’s case:
intentional concealment to avoid discriminatory-looking blacklist.
No hidden misconduct.
Current identity legal.
All checks could be rerun.
HR recommended:
written final warning for application dishonesty.
employment may resume if Nell wants.
file corrected confidentially.
no loss of seniority.
no promise of promotion or compensation tied to historical family matter.
Balanced.
Carmine agreed.
Then they asked Nell.
Not summoned.
Maya presented.
Nell read.
A final warning.
She hated it.
Then Maya said:
“You did lie on the application.”
“I know.”
Then:
“You can reject reinstatement and pursue claims.”
Nell looked.
“Do I have claims?”
“Possibly against agencies, possibly related to the blacklist. Not guaranteed.”
Then:
“Do I want to work there?”
That was different.
Nell did not know.
Then Celeste called.
Her mother had learned.
Not from Orsini.
From Nell.
Finally.
The conversation lasted thirty seconds before Celeste hung up.
Then called back.
“You went there?”
“Yes.”
“Three years?”
“Yes.”
“What were you thinking?”
Nell had no good answer.
Then Celeste said:
“You baked the pie?”
Nell almost laughed.
“Yes.”
A long silence.
Then:
“Did he like it?”
There.
Even anger made room for old kitchen pride.
“Yes.”
Celeste sighed.
Then:
“You used too much chicory.”
Nell stared.
“How would you know?”
“You always do.”
Mother.
Then Nell said:
“They’re auditing.”
Celeste’s voice changed.
“I don’t want their money.”
“No one said money.”
“They always think money fixes.”
Then:
“What do you want?”
Silence.
Celeste answered:
“My name back.”
There.
Not job.
Not friendship.
Not a place at table.
Her name.
But an audit could not give that through sentiment.
It had to state what evidence supported.
May you like
And if the evidence could not prove who stole the money, then Carmine would need to learn a sentence his family rarely used.
We do not know.
