Guided Response:

In response to your peers, first identify a non-traditional or creative way in which a corporation might be punished for committing a crime. Then discuss the consequences of implementing that punishment to the example used by your peer. Least two scholarly sources

1. Personally, I believe that corporations and businesses do not commit crimes (though they may be held accountable for them) but rather the people inside the business are guilty for creating a culture that allows for unethical and unlawful behavior. Of the two situations listed: corporate against public and individual against corporation, I have to believe that the corporation (and people behind it) committing crimes provides a greater threat. My example is the VA. Recently, the Veterans Affair's Office has been under fire due to allegations of corruption, lying to patients about expected waiting times, falsifying documents, and a litany of other unlawful situations. The saddest part about it, is that the VA office is meant to serve our military men and women who make sacrifices for all of us.  The reason I hold this stance is because there seems to be a culture of unlawful and unethical behavior in the VA that is not only tolerated, it is encouraged. Further, the amount of people around the country that have been affected by the VA is immeasurable. Whenever a corporation commits crimes, the victims are usually more widespread and larger than if an individual commits a crime against a corporation. If someone embezzles money, for example, they may be acting alone and when caught they are tried and held accountable. When a corporation is found guilty of certain crimes, typically CEO's may lose their job or title, the company at large is held financially accountable, but legal recourse is difficult against individuals. Often times corporations steal, lie, falsify information, and the legal proceedings do not punish individuals behind these corporate crimes as they do individuals who commit crimes against corporations. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/politics/va-audit/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

2. I personally think they are all great threat to civil society; however the one that bothers me is when you are entrusting your business and finances to someone. Then they turn around and steal your funds. The nature of embezzlement can be both small and large. Embezzling funds can be as minor as a store clerk pocketing a few bucks from a cash register; however, on a grander scale, embezzlement also occurs when the executives of large companies falsely expense millions of dollars, transferring the funds into personal accounts. Depending on the scale of the crime, embezzlement may be punishable by large fines and time in jail.

According to Investopedia, Madoff was arrested in 2008 and the word Ponzi became widespread throughout America. Mr. Madoff was an investment advisor that was found guilty of 11 federal counts of fraud, including securities fraud, investment advisor fraud, false filings and money laundering. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme bilked thousands of investors of an estimated amount of $65 billion. In June 2009, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. As of March 2014, approximately $5.87 billion has been distributed among the victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

Adam H. Rosenblum of The Rosenblum Law Firm is an embezzlement attorney practicing in both New York and New Jersey.

3. The U.S. Constitution clearly specifies Congress’s enumerated power to regulate commerce with foreign nations (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8). This section of the Constitution limits business in general by oversight and regulation of activities overseas. The defined power reserves the right to regulate foreign commerce and make treaties with other countries to the federal government (Cao, 2001). This enumerated power also helps businesses by prohibiting individual states from creating their own taxation of imports or exports without the approval of congress in most situations (Ciolli, 2010). Without this protection, businesses would be subject to varying levels of taxation on (or prohibition of) imports and exports, depending on the laws of each state.

Cities and states are sidestepping congress’s power to regulate commerce with foreign nations (Cao, 2001). Bypassing the power typically involves the enactment of local buy-American laws mandating the purchase of goods with American origin (Cao, 2001). While the U.S. Constitution defined foreign trade regulation take place solely on a federal level, protection under this power has weakened. Some local governments have enacted their own specific laws restricting trade with other countries. Cao (2001) contended “when local legislation conflicts with [Congress’s enumerated power to regulate commerce with foreign nations], courts have disagreed on the resolution of the conflicts.” I have experienced situations in working for a corporation based in Japan, and selling products it manufactures in Japan, where local “buy-American” laws have severely affected sales opportunities. Based on such provisions, the company could be eliminated from consideration or participation in competitive bids based in the United States with such terms. Request for Proposals (RFPs) can mandate proposed products be American made, or deduct substantial evaluation points for noncompliance with by American rules.

Cao, A. (2001). Limiting states’ roles in foreign commerce: Teaching old-world dogs new-world tricks. Houston Journal of International Law. 23(2), 349-384.

Ciolli, A., (2010). The power of United States territories to tax interstate and foreign commerce: Why the commerce and import-export clauses do not apply. Tax Lawyer. 63(4), 1223-1249. Retrieved from: ProQuest Central Database. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8

4. Tort Liability can be defined as a legal obligation of a party to a victim as a result of civil wrong or injury. It usually result as a combination directly violation rights and transgression of a public obligation. The Chinese imported from China are often tainted and are subject to multiple recalls. The food products that are being brought in are possibly causing harm to individuals. The regulatory laws in China aren’t up to par as they are here in the United States. It is causing a big issue because China is using tactics to increase their profits and economy but is cutting corners with their products. As stated in the interview, majority of the Apple juice is from China but it isn’t listed as made in China.

The tainted products from China revert back to everyone in the supply chain i.e. supplier, manufacturer and retailer. I believe that U.S. companies should be liable and not exempt from tort liability considering they are supplying the products. In order to protect the organization retailers and manufacture should list warning when products are from China. That list should display possible health conditions just as those listed on alcohol and cigarettes. I believe that many challenges would exist, considering when a customer desires a product they will take those risk. Take a look at the cigarette and alcohol companies, consumers continues to use their products. The only thing that has contributed to a decrease in sales is the price increase.

Chinese Imports & Food Safety - PBS Newshour - YouTube. (n.d.). YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Retrieved October 19, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BKe70AAU_lc

Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Tainted Food Scandal Grows in China. (2014, July 22). Retrieved from http://www.voanews.com/content/tainted-food-scandal-grows-in-china/1962475.html