1.When drafting this response, please do the following:

- For each stage, bold the name of the stage.

- Explain the stages of money laundering in your own words

2.Provide a one paragraph summary of the textbook feature labeled:Case Summary: Shared Drive + Shared Access = No Privacy.

Explain why this case is relevant to the topic this week.

FACTS: The city of Saginaw uses a common parking enforcement practice known as "chalking." City parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark the tires of parkedvehicles to track how long they have been parked. Parking enforcement officers return to the car after the postedtime for parking has passed, and if the chalk marks are still therea sign that the vehicle has not movedthe officer issues a citation. Between 2014 and 2017, Tabitha Hoskins chalked Taylor's tires on 15 separate occasions and issued hercitations. Each citation included the date and time the chalk was placed on her vehicle's tires. The cost of a citation starts at $15 and increases from there. Ms. Taylor sued the city and its parking enforcementofficer Tabitha Hoskins, alleging that chalking her tires without her consent constituted an unreasonable search under the fouth amendment.The district court granted the city's motion to dismiss, finding that, while chalking may have constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was reasonable. Ms. Taylor appealed. DECISION: The court found that the marking of tires on parked cars was a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Under Katz v. United States, a search occurs when a government official invades as area in which "a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy." In United States v. Jones, however, when governmental invasions are accompanied by physical intrusions, a searchoccurs when the government: (1) trespasses upon a constitutionally protected area, (2) to obtain information. In Jones, the government surreptitiously attached a GPS device to a car to track the car's movements. The Supreme Court held thatthe government's trespass upon the vehicleto obtain information related to the car's movement was a search. The courtnoted that under the Restatement, the physical intrusion of the chalking, regardless of how slight, would be common-law trespass. The trespass was "conjoined with... an attempt to find something or to obtain information."Neither party disputed that the city uses the chalk marks for the purpose of identifying vehicles that have been parked in the same location for a certain period of time. "[D]espitethe low-tech nature of the investigative technique..., the chalk marks clearly provided information to Officer Hoskins." The city argued that the chalking was an exception to the warrant requirement because of the community caretaker application. When cities tag abandoned cars, etc., they are taking action to prevent harm. However, the court found thatthere was no emergency when it comes to parking and congestion in the city of Saginaw.

3.which explains the sentences issued in business crimes. Select two (2) examples from this list and explain their crime(s) and punishment. (one paragraph)

4.Provide a response to #8 (James Durham case) in the Questions and Case Problems at the end of the textbook.

In your response, include the following:

- Bold the crimes or criminal statutes you find to be evident concerning the scenario.

- Explain how this case relates to business law.

James Durham operates an art gallery. He has several paintings from unknown artists that he has listed for sale. The paintings always sell at his weekly auction for $20,000 to $50,000 above what James believesthem to be worth. James learns that the bidders at the auctions are employed by an olive distributor located near the shipping yards of the city. What concerns should Durham have about the art, the bidders, and the large purchase prices?

5.In three (3) sentences or more, explain how the EEA relates to business law and computers used in business.

6.Provide a one (1) paragraph analysis of the textbook feature:Rats in the Warehouse.Assess how this case relates to business law.

FACTS: Acme Markets, Inc., was a national food retail chain headquartered in Philadelphia. John R. Park was president of Acme, which, in 1970, employed 36,000 people and operated 16 warehouses. In 1970, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forwarded a letter to Park describing, in detail, problems with rodent infestation in Acme's Philadelphia warehouse facility. In December 1971, the FDA found the same types of conditions in Acme's Baltimore warehouse facility. In January 1972, the FDA's chief of compliance for its Baltimore office wrote to Park about the inspection: We note with much concern that the old and new warehouse areas used for food storage were actively and extensively inhabitedby live rodents. Of even more concern was the observation that such reprehensible conditions obviously existed for a prolonged period of time without any detection, or were completely ignored. We trust this letter will serve to direct your attention to the seriousness of the problem and formally advise you of the urgent need to initiate whatever measures are necessary to prevent recurrence and ensure compliance with the law. After Park received the letter, he met with the vice president for legal affairs for Acme and was assured that he was "investigating the situation immediately and would be takingcorrective action." When the FDA inspected the Baltimore warehouse inMarch 1972, there was some improvement in the facility, but there was still rodent infestation. Acme and Park were both charged with violations of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Acme pleaded guilty. Park was convicted and fined $500; he appealed. DECISION: Officers of a corporation can be held criminally liable for the conduct of others within the company if it can be shown that the officers knew of the issue and failed totake the steps necessary to eliminate the criminal activity. In this case, Park had been warned and had been given several opportunities to remedy the problem. Part of his responsibility as an officer is following up to be certain that tasks he has assigned are completed. Failure to follow through can be abasis for criminal liability.