This one I don't understand
Here is the cheque:
Here is the explanation in Holt's letter:
This leaves us with the Jas Atwal cheque in the amount of $500. made out to Gurmant Grewal and dated January 14, 2003, which was subsequently deposited into Mr. Grewal's personal account in February of 2003. This cheque is perhaps the most vexing, and infuriating one from our perspective. In investigating this one, we have determined that this cheque had nothing whatsoever to do with politics, or with so-called political donations. Nothing whatsoever! This cheque was countersigned over to Mr. Grewal for a portion of a small private business debt owed to him by a Mr. Gill, who among other things is a respected individual in the Indo Canadian Community. He is also a journalist, and owner of Surrey media outlet "Radio India".Maybe it's just too late in the day for me. But I don't understand what Mr. Holt is referring to here. Why would a countersigned cheque be made out to Grewal? (I'm not trying to cast doubt on the explanation--I just don't understand it. A counter-signed cheque should have two signatures on it: that is, Atwall would write a cheque to Gill to settle his debt, and Gill would endorse the check--with a countersignature--and give it to Grewal. But again, maybe I'm just not seeing something here.)
Mr. Gill is prepared to provide a record of the Atwal debt owed to him, and also a sworn statement attesting to the fact that the Atwal cheque was in fact countersigned over to Mr. Grewal for a small and entirely unrelated (to Mr. Atwal) private debt. Further, Mr. Grewal is adamant that the words "For Fund Raiser" which appear on the memo line of this cheque must have been added at a later date (which would be ever so easy to do, and with the actual cheque in the right formal investigative hands, would also be ever so easy to verify).
(If the cheque was