This topic contains a solution. Click here to go to the answer

Author Question: Evaluate the following statement: Warrants are not required for searches in ... (Read 50 times)

JGIBBSON

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
Evaluate the following statement: Warrants are not required for searches in cyberspace.

Question 2

Ann McEachron is an administrative assistant at a large international accounting firm. Her supervisor has asked her to destroy boxes of documents from an audit the firm conducted 2 years ago. The firm generally keeps records for 7 years, because of potential tax liability and issues, but it has destroyed documents earlier in cases in which the amount of paperwork becomes overwhelming. Ann wonders about the request, but complies with her supervisor's order.  The company that was the subject of the audit is currently under criminal investigation and the partner in the accounting firm who conducted the audit is aware of that investigation.  It is a federal crime to destroy documents that are involved in or could potentially be involved in either a civil or criminal investigation. Evaluate the criminal liability of Ann, her supervisor and the partner for the destruction of the documents. Would your answer be different if Ann had read in the newspaper about the criminal investigation of the company?



Related Topics

Need homework help now?

Ask unlimited questions for free

Ask a Question
Marked as best answer by a Subject Expert

14vl19

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Answer to Question 1

The statement is not entirely correct. There are still rights of privacy on the Internet. For example, the FBI and other government agencies could not have access to your private account e-mail without a warrant. However, there are some aspects of the Internet that are more public in nature, such as the visits to sites and the use of information from sites because of the records that are maintained by companies. The key is the expectation of privacy.

Answer to Question 2

The issue is whether Ann and her supervisor had intent. It is clear that the audit partner had intent, however. The fact that he did not perform the physical act of destruction does not shield him from liability under the criminal statute. Supervisors, officers and directors can be held criminally liable for the conduct of those who report to them. If it can be shown that Ann was aware of the investigation of the company, then she develops the requisite intent. Her lack of knowledge of the law is not a defense to the destruction.




JGIBBSON

  • Member
  • Posts: 538
Reply 2 on: Jun 24, 2018
Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it


lkanara2

  • Member
  • Posts: 329
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Wow, this really help

 

Did you know?

Earwax has antimicrobial properties that reduce the viability of bacteria and fungus in the human ear.

Did you know?

As many as 28% of hospitalized patients requiring mechanical ventilators to help them breathe (for more than 48 hours) will develop ventilator-associated pneumonia. Current therapy involves intravenous antibiotics, but new antibiotics that can be inhaled (and more directly treat the infection) are being developed.

Did you know?

Bisphosphonates were first developed in the nineteenth century. They were first investigated for use in disorders of bone metabolism in the 1960s. They are now used clinically for the treatment of osteoporosis, Paget's disease, bone metastasis, multiple myeloma, and other conditions that feature bone fragility.

Did you know?

Women are 50% to 75% more likely than men to experience an adverse drug reaction.

Did you know?

If you use artificial sweeteners, such as cyclamates, your eyes may be more sensitive to light. Other factors that will make your eyes more sensitive to light include use of antibiotics, oral contraceptives, hypertension medications, diuretics, and antidiabetic medications.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library