Who can be found guilty of a business crime, and what does mens rea and actus reus mean? Using the Strayer Library, research an example of a business crime committed

Respond to the following:

• Who can be found guilty of a business crime, and what does mens rea and actus reus mean?
  • Using the Strayer Library, research an example of a business crime committed in the last two years and discuss who was held criminally liable.
• If management can be liable for crimes committed in the workplace, what US Constitutional protections exist to protect them?
  • Can management monitor and listen to employees while at work, or is this a Fourth Amendment or tort invasion of privacy violation?
    • Explain, given your understanding of the [Taylor v City of Saginaw] lawsuit in the reading.

Be sure to respond to one of your classmates’ posts. Please provide answers to the discussion questions that are researched, informed, and substantiated by citing sources following Strayer Writing Standards.

here is one of the response to help

Business crimes encompass a range of illegal activities conducted within or through corporate structures. Understanding who can be found guilty, the meanings of mens rea and actus reus, and the constitutional protections for management are crucial for navigating the legal landscape of corporate conduct. This analysis delves into these aspects, provides a recent example of a business crime, and examines the implications of monitoring employees in the workplace with reference to the [Taylor v City of Saginaw] lawsuit.
Individuals and entities within a business can be found guilty of business crimes. These crimes can be attributed to employees, managers, executives, and even the business entity itself. When an individual within a corporation commits a crime within the scope of their employment and for the benefit of the corporation, both the individual and the corporation can be held liable. This includes cases where management or executives orchestrate or approve the illegal activities.
Mens rea, or “guilty mind,” refers to the intent or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime. It indicates that the accused had a certain mental state or intention to commit the crime. Actus reus, or “guilty act,” involves the physical act of committing the crime. For a person to be found guilty of a business crime, both mens rea and actus reus must be present. This means that the accused must have engaged in a voluntary action (actus reus) with a wrongful intent or state of mind (mens rea).
Using the Strayer Library, a significant business crime case in the last two years involved the company Theranos and its founder, Elizabeth Holmes. In 2021, Elizabeth Holmes was charged with multiple counts of fraud for misleading investors, doctors, and patients about the capabilities of her company’s blood-testing technology. Holmes and former COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani were found criminally liable for deceiving stakeholders into believing that Theranos could run comprehensive tests with just a few drops of blood. This case exemplifies how top executives can be held accountable for business crimes, particularly when they knowingly perpetuate fraudulent activities.
Management can be held liable for crimes committed within the workplace. However, the U.S. Constitution provides several protections, particularly under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which ensure due process and protection against self-incrimination. These amendments safeguard individuals from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and protect against forced self-incrimination during criminal proceedings.
The issue of whether management can monitor and listen to employees at work without violating privacy rights is complex. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, which can extend to workplace privacy. However, this protection is balanced against the employer’s right to ensure productivity and prevent misconduct.
In the case of (Taylor v City of Saginaw), the court addressed the issue of whether chalking tires to enforce parking regulations constituted an unreasonable search. The court ruled that chalking tires is a search under the Fourth Amendment and must be reasonable. This decision highlights the importance of balancing governmental or managerial actions against individual privacy rights.
In the workplace context, while employers have the right to monitor employees, they must do so within legal bounds. Monitoring must be justified, such as for security or productivity reasons, and employees should be informed of such practices. Excessive or intrusive monitoring could be seen as a violation of privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment or tort law.
Understanding the legal framework surrounding business crimes, including the elements of mens rea and actus reus, is essential for navigating corporate legal issues. Recent cases like the Theranos fraud illustrate the serious consequences for executives involved in criminal activities. Constitutional protections provide a necessary balance to ensure due process and protect against unwarranted invasions of privacy. Employers must navigate the fine line between necessary monitoring and respecting employee privacy rights to avoid legal repercussions. The principles established in cases like [Taylor v City of Saginaw] provide valuable insights into these legal balances and their implications in the workplace.

References:
Strayer University Library
Marianne M. Jennings. 2021. Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment. LEG500 Canvas Course room.
Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 19-1035 (6th Cir. 2019)