Answer:
A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.
In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the majority stockholder.
Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.
Answer:b. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices Statute.
Explanation:
Fraud of access device or criminal use of access device involves the fraudulent use of card, related account number by illegally addressing the account in order to illelegally transfer funds or attaining money, services or goods.
Example, useing someone's debit card without taking permission or using a counterfeit card to purchase items, goods or services.
Answer:
It is the duty of Congress to have hearings in order to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee (as stated in the Constitution). This exclusive power rests on the U.S. Senate. The consensus, however, may be different and may vote against a nominee. Political parties within the Senate generally get in the way of who will vote and who won't, and vice-versa.
Explanation:
For example, Merrick Garland (former President Obama's nominee) was not given a hearing. Furthermore, Congress failed to perform the duties to have a hearing and decide whether to vote or deny a nominee. This is an example of how they refused to even vote on him. This is not the way government should operate.
I’m not sure but I took drivers ed so I think I know.
When a police officer is arriving at a traffic accident, they should check if any person is hurt. If someone is severely hurt or just hurt in general, the police should call the ambulance right away! They should ask questions about what happened and everyone injured in the accident so they are completely on point of knowing what happened and making sure everyone is there, and ok!
