BUS 670 WK 2 Rply

Crimes That Harm Business Versus Crimes Committed by Business

31 responses (28 unread)

Crimes - Jason Baker

Jason Baker 

5/21/2015 9:55:36 PM

As we all know crime is crime weather is it a person or a corporation it still affects the civil society. Being that I have to decide which one has the larger effect on society as a whole I would have to say that would be a corporation that commits crimes and a person who commits crimes would be the less of the two evils. The reason is that when a person commits a crime impacts the person they commit the crime on or the business on. Where if an organized corporation where to do crimes such as embezzlement, fraud, insider trading, larceny and so on then this impacts multiple people at a time instead of just of person. “Official inquiries have found that rampant mendacity and fraud contributed to the meltdown.2 Yet, if anything, the government has adopted a “gentler” response to financial wrongdoing in the last five years.” (Sepinwall, 2015). This statement supports what I am talking how it impacts larger numbers of people. See how corporations that all did sometime of crime like embezzlement or insider trading and the list goes on contributed to the meltdown. “Consider the recently announced prosecutions of two JPMorgan traders in the wake of “the London Whale,” billed as “one of Wall Street’s biggest trading blunders of the past few years.” The two traders are charged with having falsified records in the first half of 2012 in order to cover up losses” (Sepinwall, 2015). To cover up things for a corporation as large as JPMorgan takes coordination and lots of other people involved and see the impact on how many people this crime affected. “The allegedly criminal acts in which they participated led to $6.2 billion in losses for JPMorgan. Moreover, it is believed that many people at JPMorgan worked together to hide these losses from investors and regulators” (Sepinwall, 2015). This is one great example of why I feel that corporations that commits crimes is the greater of the two evils.

Sepinwall, A.J.(2015) Crossing the Fault Line in Corporate Criminal Law. Journal of Corporation Law, 40(2) 439-482.

Week 2 Discussion 1 Lakeicha Roberts

Lakeicha Roberts 

5/19/2015 12:29:53 PM

Which do you believe presents the greatest threat to civil society: a corporation that commits crimes (e.g., murder, environmental crimes, or bribery, etc.), or persons who commit crimes that harm businesses (e.g., embezzlement, fraud, or larceny, etc.)? Defend your response, using at least one example from current events.

I believe a corporation that commits crimes presents the greatest threat to society. Corporate crime is considered a form of white collar crime that is committed by persons of respectability and high social status. Some people refer to it as a crime of the rich and affluent. Cavender and Cullen (2006) postulate that it can include such infractions as (a) crimes by politicians; (b) crimes by professionals like accountants, physicians, and attorneys; (c) cheating on taxes; (d) theft or embezzlement; and (e) crimes committed by corporate organizations themselves. 

On the one hand, a corporation that commits a crime can create a wide range of contamination that spans across the globe. In other words, when a corporation commits a crime, millions of people may be at risk on a global level.

A crime that is committed by an individual, however, who causes harm to a business, such as when a physician defrauds the government by billing for false medical payments, will have different consequences that influences a smaller region.

In some situations, it can be difficult to discern which form of crime presents more of a civil threat because there are many facets to consider.   A corporation, especially an MNC (multinational corporation), has a great influence on a global scale. Take a fast food franchise for instance; many of these corporations promote unhealthy food ingredients that have been scientifically proven to contribute to life threatening diseases like obesity, diabetes, arteriosclerosis and other debilitating illnesses that affect millions worldwide. These companies sell inferior products for huge profit and use clever marketing strategies to make it appear ethical.  I believe that those who embrace an ethical culture are the ones who will help lead society to a better future.

References:

Cavender, G., & Cullen, F. (2006). Corporate crime under attack (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

W-2 D2

Brian Sullivan 

5/21/2015 9:13:28 AM

Product liability

1.      (A)  If U.S. should not be liable, then they could legally exempt from trot liability.  Discuss the consequences of such a policy to U.S. consumers.

     From watching the video on China imports & food safety the U.S has had a long history of receiving imports from China and over the years problems like this have came to the attention of the U.S., but I do not think the U.S. is entirely at fault.  I think that China should consider all the recalls of their products that have been imported into the U.S.  Also the U.S. needs to push harder for the packaging information and the border inspectors to keep the Americans safer.  The consequences to these actions could mean less goods that there would be imported from China in the future if this problem does not get resolved.  Also that China could refuse to help the U.S. out in a financial crisis if needed help later down the road.

2.) Assume that U.S. retailers do have legal liability for defective products.  What steps could U.S, retailers and manufacturers take, when using products imported from China that would minimize their liability exposure?

     From viewing the video it seems that China is at fault for not keeping up on potential hazards, but the U.S is also at fault for not pushing sooner for more border inspectors.  Therefore it is the retailer’s responsibility to warn the consumers at first sight of problems with imported products.  I cannot say how many times that I have seen recalls on toys and other products that have been imported from China at the local wal-mart.  There has also been a few recalls on the happy meal toys from the local McDonalds.  The plan to minimize liability for retailers is to research each suspected or imported product as it comes to the store. 

     The next thing to do is to pull the products off the shelves and send them back to China with a letter of return addressing why the product is being returned.  After that retailers need to keep pushing the congress and government to boost import inspectors at the border to keep Americans safer.  This could take some time to accomplish, but it has to be does for the safety of the American people.  Also retailers can write the congress about reoccurring problems and in hopes they will do something.  These small actions could get the ball rolling when it comes to getting more information about where food ingredients come from so that the U.S. can post them on the packages.

References

     Seaquist, G (2012). Business Law for Managers, Bridgepoint Education, Inc

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

Product Liability

Amanda Gallagher 

5/21/2015 4:47:40 PM

From watching the video, it seems as if the law has not caught up with the current import situation.  The video also says that it is very difficult to enforce China to meet certain regulation criteria due to the state of their economy and government.  That being said you then have to look at the organizations that are doing business with Chinese organizations that do not meet the standards Americans expect. 

Personally I think that businesses should be held accountable for how and where they get their product.  That would mean that they should be liable and would not be legally exempt from tort liability.  In product liability cases you have to establish negligence.  "Negligence is defined by a set of elements that must be satisfied for the legal system to enforce the liability rule against the defendant" (Geistfeld, 2011. pg. 144).  On top of that the court must also decide whether it is the defendants duty to give a reasonable amount of care. 

I believe that consumers to educate themselves more about the products they buy, especially for their children.  However, in a continually undereducated society, companies have to assume the responsibility of providing safe products.  The consequences of this means that profits would not be as high or the products would have to be sold for more money.  Americans expect cheap prices on certain items, so you would have to advertise and educate them as to why the price is higher.  You would have to tell them about the harmful effects of certain Chinese influences in the products or explain how much safer it is manufactured or produced here. You could also explain how  many jobs are created here in America because of this change.

To completely minimize your liability then you would have to stop doing business with the Chinese organizations that were not meeting regulations.  I believe in honest business.  Honest businesses start with solid core values.  My strategy would be to establish the core values and then stick to them.  If integrity and consumer safety are part of that then you would not be able to work with those Chinese companies.  You would have to spend more money making sure your products integrity was intact by sending people to China to monitor the process or bring all your business home and work with other trusted organizations. 

My husband and I both cut back on certain parts of our budget in order to buy local and American made products.  For example, we have not shopped at Wal-Mart in over three years.  Thanks to the internet we are making a lot of our own household products and growing produce in the warmer months.  No one is perfect.  We do not research every single thing we buy, but it a lifestyle that is always in progress.

Reference:

Geistfeld, M. A. (2011). The Principle of Misalignment: Duty, Damages, and the Nature of Tort Liability. Yale Law Journal, 121(1), 142-193.