Answer:
embezzlement
Explanation:
the act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, either to be held or to be used for specific purposes. Embezzlement is a type of financial fraud
Answer:
B. Employers are not liable for the acts of their supervisors, regardless of whether the employer is aware of the sexual harassment act.
Explanation:
In this case, the Supreme Court mentioned that an employer isat risk. That means that the empolyer does nor have a defense when sexual harassment by a supervisor involves a tangible employment action. Courts hope that employers educate supervisors so they do not commit any type of behavior that could be considered as sexual harassment. Also, all employees must be educated so as to understand their rights and responsibilities .
Star Trek was a US-based media series based on Gene Roddenberry's science-fiction TV series.
<u>Explanation:
</u>
Actually, black holes draw matter to them, and it's no longer detectable when it passes inside the event horizon.
And, when events are near but still outside the event horizon, incredible things happen.
As a matter of flaws into the black hole on an iron core, the gravitational power of the black hole is accelerated at ever-higher speeds, with gas colliding rising rates, and gas becoming warm.
Hot gas is the heat emission and is the hot gas emission that we consider as a huge energy production. But all the gas still resides outside the black hole gravitational field.
Answer: The 1999 Constitution was promulgated into law by the military regime of General Abdulsalami Abubakar after the Constitution Debate Co-ordinating Committee led by Justice Niki Tobi submitted its report. The Tobi Committee had barely two months to consult with Nigerians before submitting its report.
Explanation: Hope this helps :)
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment. Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
