The non-professional employees Jerry and Ben have committed the crime of theft because they have the intention of stealing money from the firm they are working for. These individuals would commit the crime of theft through falsification of invoices and gathering the money that they have collected from the company’s clients. Their unlawful act is considered a crime because they are issuing fraudulent invoices to individuals who have been tricked to pay for a trusted transaction, in exchange for a commodity or a service that has been rendered to them by the company (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990).
In the case of Jerry and Ben, they have issued invoices for payments that have not been completely delivered. The prime cause of the criminal act of theft performed by Jerry and Ben is to amass money for their own personal gain and without performing any act of service or product that legally corresponds to the payment for which they have issues invoice receipts. The use of fraudulent invoice shows that Jerry and Ben were releasing company documents that were unauthorized and this act of crime can also be accompanied by a case of misrepresentation of the company.
Should the company determine that these two individuals were releasing unauthorized invoice receipts to the company’s clients, these two non-professional employees can be categorized as dishonest members of the company and may be subjected to immediate termination from the company. Falsification of invoice receipts deprives both the company and the clients of the company any legal ownership of a product that has been sold by the company and bought by the customer.
Such crime can also result in a decrease in the revenue of the company they are working for and such act can also affect the positions of the other trustworthy employees of the company because their criminal act of theft will deplete the company of the expected revenues from the sales or services that the company is mandated to perform. On the part of Breyers, who is an employee of my company and subsequently discovers the criminal acts that Jerry and Ben are performing, he is also considered to be committing the criminal act of malicious intimidation or harassment.
The behavior shown by Breyers is based on his own personal goal of monetary gain and he performs this by threatening Jerry and Ben to give him part of their money collection in order to prevent him from reporting these two non-professional employees to the police authorities. It is unfortunate to think that Breyers would not immediately report the unlawful behavior of Jerry and Ben to the proper authorities but would instead try to get something out of what he knows about these two individuals.
He would rather profit from the information he carries and attempts to reap the benefits of what he knows instead of helping the company from further loss of revenue. Breyers may not be considered to be committing harassment if he will not be gaining any benefit from the two non-professional employees and would just be simply threatening these two individuals in order to prevent them from continuing there unlawful behavior (Kroeber, 2007).
However, since Breyers is threatening that he will report the two non-professional individuals unless he gets part of the share of money Jerry and Ben have collected, he is thus also committing the crime of malicious intimidation or harassment because his actions do not prevent Jerry and Ben from stealing money from future transactions of the company but would rather let them continue on with the theft as he continuously receives part of their collection.
In addition, Breyers’ reason for malicious intimidation was not for the good of the company but only for his benefit because his malicious intimidation was delivered in order for him to also receive monetary share of the collection from the issuance of falsified invoices to clients of the company.
In such conditions, it will be difficult to apprehend such individuals unless another party will discover this unlawful act and report these actions to the proper police authorities and the officials of the company. References Gottfredson MR and Hirschi T (1990): A General Theory of Crime. In: Jacoby JE (ed. ): Classics of criminology, 3rd ed. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. Kroeber HL (2007): The historical debate on brain and legal responsibility: Revisited. Behav. Sci Law. 25(2):251-61.