20. Investco, Inc. was accused of violating the federal mail fraud statute due t
ID: 448655 • Letter: 2
Question
20. Investco, Inc. was accused of violating the federal mail fraud statute due to the activities of some of its employees, who had used the U.S. mail to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme designed to advance Investco’s otherwise legitimate business interests. Investco argued that was not guilty because the employee involved were relatively minor employees and were acting without the knowledge or consent of any high-level corporate officer. In addition, Investco argued that the employees were acting in violation of a longstanding and well-known Investco policy against fraudulent schemes. Is Investco guilty?
A. Yes, because nothing in the facts indicates that Investco should qualify for the protection of the due diligence defense recognized by most courts.
B. Yes, because the involved employees were acting within the scope of their employment and for the benefit of Investco.
C. No, because Investco could not have had the necessary mens rea.
D. No, because high-level corporate officers must be involved and they were not involved. here in order for criminal intent to be imputed to the corporation.
21. The tort of assault differs from the tort of battery in which of the following ways?
A. Assault requires proof of each of the separate elements of negligence.
B. Assault requires the plaintiff was apprehensive of harmful or offensive contact.
C. Assault is an intentional tort and battery relates to negligence.
D. Assault claims may be brought on future threats, whereas battery claims may not.
E. Assault is a strict liability tort.
Explanation / Answer
20) The correct option is C
Explanation : Even though Investco employees were acting within the scope of employment to advance Investco’s otherwise legitimate business interests, the company was not having knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of the crime and therefore the company cannot be held guilty .
21) The correct option is D
Explanation : Tort of assault is an intentional act of the defendant which causes the plaintiff reasonably to apprehend that a battery is about to be inflicted . Whereas tort of battery is the intentional and direct application of physical force upon another person .It is the making of the physical contact that must be intentional.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.