Question

John is a low-level employee at an accounting firm. In his duty as an employee at the firm, John forges documents and signatures on documents regarding the firm's clients. John does this because his boss asked him to. Although the boss asked John to commit the forgery, his boss had no direct action in creating the documents or forging the signatures. Now the company is being sued. In addition to the company's liability, which of the following persons potentially could be held personally liable for a corporate crime? I. John II. John's manager III. The CEO, who in this specific case we assume could have prevented the crime.

Answer 1

Answer:

the three of them could be held personally liable:

• I. John
• II. John's manager
• III. The CEO, who in this specific case we assume could have prevented the crime.

Explanation:

John committed forgery and possibly fraud by forging clients' signatures on documents held by the company. His boss ordered him to do so, so he is also responsible for John's actions. John can even try to put all the blame on his boss alleging that he was forced to forge the signatures. The CEO of the firm is also responsible because the forged documents had to serve someone's illegal purposes, and the CEO probably was the one that needed them or knew about what was going on and didn't do anything to stop it.