Discussion 1 week 2 Crimes That Harm Business Versus Crimes Committed by Business Which do you believe presents the greatest threat to civil society: a corporation that commits crimes (e.g., murder, environmental crimes, or bribery), or persons who commit crimes that harm businesses (e.g., embezzlement, fraud, or larceny)? Defend your response, using at least one example from current events. Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a substantive manner. Some ways to do this include the following, though you may choose a different approach, providing your response is substantive: Review the posts made by your peers. 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. Respond to Meas Khlaing post In general, any type of crime being committed will be considered a threat to civil society. In this case, crimes that harm business vs crimes committed by business I would go with the persons who commit crimes that harm businesses is the greatest threat to society today. Not only does this affects the people but the organization structure as well. This can affect the image/reputation of how the consumers do business with that particular organization. Society as a whole, we humans are judgmental creatures and depending on the crime it can affect a lot of things towards that business. However, this all depends on the crime that has been brought up and for society, stakeholder, law regulation to decided what the outcome of the case can be and depending on the case of the crime, paying a simple fine is one option to remedy the situation. For example, Well Fargo sandal with the fraud account being created. According to the NY Times (2018), “Wells Fargo was found by regulators to have systematically created fake customer accounts and misled customers and government officials.” This has caused a lot of problem any many people got away with the scandal and made lots of money from this scheme. Seaquist p. 86, describe fraud are likely to be committed at work and are in one of these six departments: accounting, operations, sales, executive/ upper management, customer service, or purchasing. In the end of this fraud scandal, Well Fargo was fined with a bill as a result of their illegal activities and faced many lawsuits altogether. This also led to the resignation of the CEO at Wells Fargo. Overall, the bank's stable reputation was tarnished by this widespread fraud. Flitter, E., Appelbaum, B. & Cowley, S. (2018). NY Times. Federal Reserve Shackles Wells Fargo After Fraud Scandal. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/business/wells-fargo-federal-reserve.html Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ Respond to Mitchell Powell post When considering corpora ...

1. Discussion 1 week 2 Crimes That Harm Business Versus Crimes
Committed by Business
Which do you believe presents the greatest threat to civil
society: a corporation that commits crimes (e.g., murder,
environmental crimes, or bribery), or persons who commit
crimes that harm businesses (e.g., embezzlement, fraud, or
larceny)? Defend your response, using at least one example
from current events.
Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your fellow
students’ posts in a substantive manner. Some ways to do this
include the following, though you may choose a different
approach, providing your response is substantive:
Review the posts made by your peers. 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.
Respond to Meas Khlaing post
In general, any type of crime being committed will be
considered a threat to civil society. In this case, crimes that
harm business vs crimes committed by business I would go with
the persons who commit crimes that harm businesses is the
greatest threat to society today. Not only does this affects the
people but the organization structure as well. This can affect the
image/reputation of how the consumers do business with that
particular organization. Society as a whole, we humans are
judgmental creatures and depending on the crime it can affect a
lot of things towards that business. However, this all depends
on the crime that has been brought up and for society,
stakeholder, law regulation to decided what the outcome of the

2. case can be and depending on the case of the crime, paying a
simple fine is one option to remedy the situation. For example,
Well Fargo sandal with the fraud account being created.
According to the NY Times (2018), “Wells Fargo was found by
regulators to have systematically created fake customer
accounts and misled customers and government officials.” This
has caused a lot of problem any many people got away with the
scandal and made lots of money from this scheme. Seaquist p.
86, describe fraud are likely to be committed at work and are in
one of these six departments: accounting, operations, sales,
executive/ upper management, customer service, or purchasing.
In the end of this fraud scandal, Well Fargo was fined with a
bill as a result of their illegal activities and faced many lawsuits
altogether. This also led to the resignation of the CEO at Wells
Fargo. Overall, the bank's stable reputation was tarnished by
this widespread fraud.
Flitter, E., Appelbaum, B. & Cowley, S. (2018). NY Times.
Federal Reserve Shackles Wells Fargo After Fraud Scandal.
Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/business/wells-fargo-
federal-reserve.html
Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers [Electronic
version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
Respond to Mitchell Powell post
When considering corporations and people that commit crimes,
it is interesting to also consider which of them is more of a
threat to civil society. Depending on the situation in question,
there can be an argument made for both sides. I think that in the
majority of cases, a corporation that commits a crime would
likely be more dangerous. One of the main reasons why a
business crime is more dangerous and threatening that a single

3. person crime against a business is that a business operates at
such a large scale that a lot more people have the potential of
being affected. Businesses also have enough money to make a
lot of things happen. For example, if they had something
planned for the future that would end up harming the
environment, they would have a lot more funds to work with to
actually make a damaging difference. When a person on the
individual level commits a crime against a company like
embezzlement, usually the amount embezzled will stay in that
one person's hands. It also won't be enough often times severely
damage the company without the company noticing first in
many cases. However, "all crimes are offenses against society,
and convicted criminals are punished" (Seaquist, 2012). So
whether the crime is at and individual level or at a corporate
level, each will need to be evaluated and will receive the
appropriate punishment.
An example that is fairly recent as a crime committed by a
corporation would be what happened with Facebook. Facebook
sold users' personal information to third parties. In this
instance, the personal information and data of billions of people
was not protected and was put at risk. Even in comparison to
some of the largest embezzlement schemes in history being in
the millions of dollars, that amount is still a fairly small amount
in comparison to how much the company profits each year. Both
instances are not good and both should be avoided altogether
but it seems as though corporate crime has the potential to be
more threatening and damaging.
References
Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers [Electronic
version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
Discussion 2 week 2 Product Liability

4. After viewing the Chinese Imports & Food Safety (Links to an
external site.) video, consider whether U.S. retailers that utilize
products or raw ingredients that are imported from China and
are poorly regulated should be liable in tort for injuries to
consumers who are harmed by those products. Answer parts a
and b of the prompt.
For this part of the prompt, answer one of the following points:
If U.S. companies should not be liable, then they could be
legally exempt from tort liability. Discuss the consequences of
such a policy to U.S. consumers.
If the U.S. companies should be liable, then those companies
would not be legally exempt from tort liability. Discuss the
consequences of such a policy to U.S. businesses.
Regardless of your response to part a, 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? For example, they could warn consumers about the
potential, though speculative, dangers when using products
comprised of poorly regulated ingredients or components. Given
your strategy, what challenges would exist for U.S. businesses
that implemented your strategy?
Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your fellow
students’ posts in a substantive manner. Some ways to do this
include the following, though you may choose a different
approach, providing your response is substantive:
Discuss the challenges that would exist if your employer (or a
fictitious employer) were to adopt your classmate’s strategy.
Respond to Kathy Kim post

5. U.S. companies should be liable for the actions they take since
they are selling products to consumers who are purchasing with
the understanding that their products are safe. Strict liability
would be applicable as the retailers would be liable for the
products being unreasonably dangerous (Seaquist, 2012). In the
instance of products from China, finished or raw products that
are purchased by U.S. companies should be evaluated
thoroughly and frequently to verify that they live up to the
standards that the U.S. Company holds for themselves and their
consumers. If not, they are responsible for the damages caused
by their negligence.
The consequences of holding companies liable and not exempt
from tort liability are the resources needed in order to keep
products safe. For instance, there would be additional regulation
and enforcement for companies to comply. That regulation may
include additional inspections for imports or requiring
inspections when exporting if an agreement to do so with the
exporting country is in place. These are resources from a
government perspective.
Another consequence is the increase in the price of products due
to higher prices from other countries or from business resources
used to inspect products. Businesses would need to find ways to
cut costs elsewhere if they cannot use the cheaper products that
come from China. Cutting costs elsewhere may lead to an
impact on labor sources. It will cause a domino effect.
Monetary resources are taken from another aspect of the
business to make up for the loss in profits from buying products
of quality.
U.S. companies can take additional steps to minimize liability.
One option is having contracts with multiple sources rather than
relying on one or a few to minimize the dependency. Another
option is to develop high standards on product inspections and
adhere to them. The first strategy would require resources to

6. seek sources (suppliers) for finished or raw products and to
continually review to confirm that there is a minimum number
of suppliers in order to minimize dependency.
The second strategy of maintaining high standards on inspection
of products would require resources (monetary and labor) for
initial set up of high standards, sustaining the standards, and the
frequency of inspections. Of all options, it requires monetary
resources that businesses may or may not have in order to
allocate towards these strategies.
Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers [Electronic
version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
Respond to Adreanna Reed post
If the U.S. companies should be liable, then those companies
would not be legally exempt from tort liability. Discuss the
consequences of such a policy to U.S. businesses.
It is the American organization's obligation to ensure
products that are being sent out from China are not hurtful to
the American public. If the product is unsafe, at that point the
organization would be liable to tort liability. Product liability
permits "an offended party to sue under the speculations of
guarantee, carelessness, and severe risk for wounds continued
as the aftereffect of an product breakdown" (Seaquist, 2012, p.
132). As per Polinsky and Shavell (2010), the bad that could
happen to United State organizations concerning this strategy
will be the legal costs will expand, which can cause the
expansion if costs of its products. Different things that could
occur in an product liability claim are organizations decreasing
working hours, making them close down plants and laying off
their representatives.

7. Regardless of your response to part 1 of this question, 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? For example, they could warn consumers
about the potential, though speculative, dangers when using
products comprised of poorly regulated ingredients or
components. Given your strategy, what challenges would exist
for U.S. businesses that implemented your strategy?
There are a few stages the American organizations can take to
limit liability exposure. One thing is they can take out liability
protection and insurance. The test for this is the organizations
would need to build their expenses. Second, the American
organizations can test the products before carrying them to
America. The test for this is more expenses for structures and
individuals to achieve the testing and ensure the lawful
activities and actions done by the producers and the Chinese
government are survived. Something else is called Foreign
Direct Investment where structures are worked in China to make
the product to America's nature of guidelines and ship them to
America. The test for this is more expenses and "moves in the
political atmosphere, monetary shakiness, cash devaluation, and
market-explicit decreases" (Finch, (2012, p. 423).
Reference
Finch, J. (2012). Managerial Marketing. San Diego, CA:
Bridgeport Education, Inc.
Polinsky, M., & Shavell, S. (2010). The Uneasy Case for
Product Liability. The Harvard Law Review, 2010. Vol.
123:1437. Retrieved from
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/polinsky_shavell.pdf (Links to an external
site.)

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