With the motive confirmed as the retrieval of a sensitive key, the investigation pivoted entirely to the money. Detective Keir's police unit was now forced to focus on the victim's last physical movements—the multiple transport companies he used and the drivers involved. This kept them tied up in complex, tedious fieldwork.
I focused on the cold analytical trail: the subpoenaed financial transfer logs of all aggressive corporate firms in the sector. The sniper's identity was still a phantom; the payment was the only concrete lead.
I cross-referenced aggressive lobbying efforts, rapid stock moves, and regulatory filings with the shell companies I'd already flagged as suspicious. One company stood out: highly ambitious, aggressive, and recently pushing hard for regulatory approval. This was the target firm.
I focused my analytical lens on this suspicious firm. The result was immediate. The internal investigation revealed that the CEO and his father (the Chairman) were directly involved. They had authorized the hiring of an outside contractor—a high-end sniper—with a clear directive: monitor the victim and stop him if he ran.
The corporate motive was confirmed: The victim was fleeing to Singapore with the key. The company's plan was to immobilize him and recover the key before he reached the airport. The CEO and the Chairman were the paymasters.
But the corporate crime was only half the truth. I pulled up the pathologist's notes again. If the plan was simply to immobilize the victim for a quiet recovery, one or two shots would suffice. Yet, the sniper had fired four high-velocity rounds, tightly clustered. This was overkill.
Why the extra violence? The four shots suggested a malice that went beyond the CEO's desperate plan. I spent the next few days deep in the sniper's signature. I ran the ballistics data against known contract killers and realized the rifle used was unconventional—a highly modified tactical weapon. The four-shot pattern was unique to one known, though unproven, mercenary: "The Anchor." His signature was to use multiple shots not for killing, but to pin the target's body to the ground for a clean snatch-and-grab.
But in this case, the overkill was the murder. Why would The Anchor violate his contract to immobilize and instead execute the victim?
I finally found the missing link in the corporate communications I'd subpoenaed. A late-night encrypted email chain between the CEO and the sniper, sent just hours before the hit. The CEO, panicking over the victim's planned flight to Singapore, had increased the payment significantly and added a new, desperate instruction: "Ensure he cannot talk."
The four shots were not overkill; they were a deliberate secondary kill order. The CEO's fear of the victim negotiating or exposing the company in Singapore had turned an extraction into an execution.
I now had every piece of the puzzle: the motive, the paymasters, and the intent of the murder weapon. The case was fully solved.