Question 1

Embezzlement is a kind of larceny that entails taking another person's property by an individual entrusted to take care of the property. It can happen in various situations but is typically committed to financial advisors or other individuals responsible for other people's money. Embezzlement crime is rising in America, with an average loss of almost $1.5 million in major embezzlement schemes. Such crimes could result in losing a job, or the perpetrator might be sentenced to jail for up to 6 months. Also, they could incur fines as high as $1000 (Attanasi et al., 2019).

For embezzlement to happen, various elements must be present. Firstly, there should be a fiduciary relationship; this is a financial association between the perpetrator and the victim. It means that one individual or entity trusted and depended on the other to handle property, money, or any other thing of financial value. It is worth noting that the casual handling of money is insufficient to justify a fiduciary relationship between the cashier and clients whose money they collect. Secondly, the offender must have received the other person's property through the fiduciary relationship and transferred the money to a third party or themselves. Lastly, the offender's actions must be intentional, and they must portray a fraudulent intent (Dong & Chengfeng, 2016). Hence in situations where the trusted party mistakenly transfers the client's property, it is not perceived as embezzlement.

Sabrina should not be convicted of embezzlement. There is no fiduciary relationship since, as a cashier at a supermarket, the mere handling of money is not considered a fiduciary relationship with the customer. Also, Sabrina did not receive the money through a fiduciary relationship, and neither did she transfer the money to herself or a third party. She neither had the intention to embezzle the money. The money fell from the cash register into Sabrina's purse. Hence Sabrina is innocent of the embezzlement accusations.

Question 2

The 1986 Money Laundering Control Act is an American Act of Congress that considered money laundering a federal crime. It entails two sections, Section 1956 and Section 1957.  Section 1956 restricts people from participating in financial transactions with the earnings obtained from the specified unlawful activities. Also, federal law expects that the person intends to make a transaction has the aim of hiding ownership or the source of the funds. Another crime related to money laundering includes financial transactions that are generally defined and do not involve a business or financial organization. Moreover, passing money from one individual to another to hide or cover up the source, control, or location of the money is still considered a specified unlawful activity.

 On the other hand, section 1957 limits the spending of more than $10000 without disclosing. However, this crime bears lesser punishment than money laundering and the money laundering statutes, which demand that money go through on various financial institutions. In Fort Thomas's cases, the exchange of $10200 following the Money Laundering Control Act demands. This is because the money exceeds the limit of $10,000 thus, is subject to disclosure. On the other hand, the second transaction of $9600 by Fort Thomas would not be subject to disclosure according to the Money Laundering Act since it is below the $10,000 limit. Both transactions are per Section 1956 of the Act; they are obtained from a small publishing company in Northern Kentucky. Hence the origin of the money is known, and the intention is specified. Generally, the transactions adhere to all the Money Control Act requirements apart from the $10,200, which exceeds the limit required for disclosure.

1. Question 1: Sabrina should not be convicted of embezzlement
2. Question 2: The transactions adhere to all the Money Control Act requirements apart from the $10,200, which exceeds the limit required for disclosure.