Business Crime

Business Crime

Student’s Name

Institution Affiliation

Course Name and Code

Professor’s Name

Date

Business Crime

Question 1

When it comes to business crimes, employees and every individual who holds a managerial position within that business who is found engaging in any illegal activity or knew the illegal acts but did nothing about it can be found guilty of a crime. Usually, the criteria for establishing a criminal liability in business crime entails finding out who knew about the crime but did nothing about it, who authorized the criminal activities, or who failed to act rationally and justly (Jennings, 1).

An example of a business crime committed in the past two years is that of a New York man named Joshua Suarez. He was found guilty of supervising a massive wire fraud scheme that caused over $2 million in losses for the victims. The conspirators utilized several techniques, such as deceptively demanding to be the account holders and negotiating fake payments, to falsely persuade banks and business entities to release and send to them. In order to open bank accounts and launder the money, Suarez recruited and gave instructions to people. Suarez directed the withdrawal and transfer of money from the bank accounts after the fraudulently acquired amounts had been deposited there. In his case, 9 people were accused, 8 pleaded guilty, and 6 were sentenced. Other defendants were accused of several offenses, but these were only accusations; thus, they were assumed innocent until proven guilty. Besides the jail term, Suarez was penalized with 3 years of supervised release and was mandated to pay $504,164 in compensation by Judge McNulty (U.S. Department of Justice n.p).

Question 2

Regarding crime and privacy protection within a workplace, private employees have a reasonable privacy expectation because searches and seizures by supervisors or government employers are subject to the Fourth Amendment’s restraints (Determann and Robert, 987). On the other hand, public employees do not have a reasonable privacy expectation because a warrantless search may be considered reasonable and not considered a defilement of the Fourth Amendment (Determann and Robert, 988). The warrantless search is what violates the reasonable privacy expectation of these private employees.

In the US, the test for the tort of invasion of privacy is the “highly offensive test”. The US Restatement utilizes this test to serve as a restraining factor, which reflects the concern that the law of tort is not supposed to overly limit freedom of expression, which is safeguarded by the US constitution’s First Amendment (Giliker, 768).

Question 3

If the management’s primary goal is to ensure its employees are productive, they should be limited to monitoring the business property. Therefore, they should only monitor the computers, phones, and other equipment that belong to the company. This is because monitoring the personal computers and phones will invade the employees’ privacy. To ensure that only the organization’s computers and phones are monitored, the organization should advise employees to use only company equipment. This will protect the employees’ privacy and allow the management to monitor how employees are working. They will be able to monitor how employees work and identifies areas that require improvement. Consequently, this will increase employees’ productivity.

Sources:

Jennings, Marianne. (2022) Business: Its legal, ethical, and global environment (12th edition) Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

U.S. Department of Justice (2021). New York Man Sentenced To Six Years In Prison For Supervisory Role In Large-Scale Wire Fraud Conspiracy. https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/new-york-man-sentenced-six-years-prison-supervisory-role-large-scale-wire-fraud.Determann, Lothar, and Robert Sprague. (2011). Intrusive monitoring: Employee privacy expectations are reasonable in Europe, destroyed in the United States.Berkeley Tech. LJ 26,979-1034.Giliker, Paula. (2015). A Common Law Tort of Privacy?-The Challenges of Developing Human Rights Tort. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 27, 761-788. https://journalsonline.academypublishing.org.sg/Journals/Singapore-Academy-of-Law-Journal-Special-Issue/e-Archive/ctl/eFirstSALPDFJournalView/mid/513/ArticleId/1070/Citation/JournalsOnlinePDF