The traditional crime of embezzlement by low-level employees has been replaced by: a. thefts masterminded by outsiders. b. low-l
evel employees engaging in stock fraud. c. company owners building up companies and selling them to the highest bidder with consequent job loss. d. mismanagement and looting by upper-level management.
A: The reason A is an incorrect option is because the question specifically refers to employees of the company. Meaning that interference by outsiders does not count as embezzlement.
C: This option is incorrect because this option involves company owners, which does not refer to low-level employees, and therefore is incorrect.
D: Also does not refer to low-level employees due to the referencing to upper-level management.
wri"ng books and selling his copyright. (f) Pro't ... ( e) Again, this ful'ls the prerequisites as it is cash and a real gain (see ... This would be the case even if the payments were not regular as regularity .
No i would not recommend going to court because i'm sure if he has the money to get a lawyer then he should have the money to replace his damaged goods
