Both the sentences are to be served concurrently which means that they must be served at the same time. As per the question, the ten-year sentence and the three-year sentence would be served simultaneously. Therefore, the three-year sentence would be served with the ten-year sentence making it total of total ten years.
Yes, their modification including its proposal by Rachel Arnett seems to have been an infringement including its declaration of Professional practice by IMA.
Yeah, William Earle certainly breached the Professional practice Statement including its IMA.
Explanation:
The underlying ethical values of IMA usually involve integrity, justice, accountability, and intellectual honesty. Rachel Arnett breached the Honesty Policy then revised their plan and sent it for acceptance to either the Fore's chairman as well as the investment member of the committee with shareholders through revision.
William Earle should've just explained the fact the legislation is changed and whether the problem or failure resides throughout the proposal wouldn't have some mistakes. After that, Mr. William has violated the IMA Declaration of Ethical Standards Codes of Obligation.
