18.04.24 English for Business

CHAPTER  1  lesson 4

Listening about corporate crime Слушая о корпоративных преступлениях

Develop language about corporate crime Разработка формулировок о корпоративной преступности

Match the terms with their definitions.Сопоставьте термины с их определениями.

launder отмывать= hide where money comes from прятать там, откуда приходят деньги

scam афера= a deceptive trick or scheme обманный трюк или схема

embezzle присваивать secretly steal from a company тайно воровать у компании

Now let's listen to how they're used in a conversation.

Detective 1: We know that Morag has been involved in all kinds of scams."Мы знаем, что Моrаg была замешана во всех видах махинаций."
Detective 2: Yes, but we can't prove the money laundering. There isn't enough evidence.Да, но мы не можем доказать отмывание денег. У нас недостаточно доказательств."
Detective 1: True, but have you seen the cheques she wrote to herself? Верно, но ты видел чеки, которые она выписывала себе?"
Detective 2: No, what's that? Нет, что это за чеки?"
Detective 1: She's been writing cheques from a business account to her personal account. And we've looked at the handwriting (почурк); it's not her boss's genuine (подлинная) signature."Она выписывала чеки со счета бизнеса на свой личный счет. И мы посмотрели на почерк; это не подлинная подпись ее босса." 

-------------------------------------------------------------

What crime do the police have evidence that Morag committed? = embezzling Morag has "written cheques to herself", so she seems to be "embezzling" company money.-(Кажется, она "присваивает" деньги компании.)

Morag embezzled company funds by counterfeiting her boss's signature on cheques.

The signatures on the cheques are not genuine, so they have been "counterfeited".

The police suspect Morag of laundering money, but they don't have any proof. The detective mentions that they can't "prove the money "laundering"".

counterfeit = to make an illegal copy fraud = a lie to get money ложь ради денег

-------------------------------------------

Detective 1: Let's talk about Morag's business partners, the Johnstone brothers. They run Medicea.
Detective 2: The pharmaceutical company?
Detective 1: Yes, we have good reason to believe they've been counterfeiting drugs.
Detective 2: That's serious fraud! Can we prove it?
Detective 1: Well, I'm hoping if we charge (обвинить) Morag with embezzlement then she'll testify  (lдавать показание) against them. --------------------------------

What crime do the police want to charge the Johnstone brothers with? producing fake products   They believe they've been "counterfeiting" pharmaceutical drugs.

Read the case notes and think about what's missing in the numbered gaps

Name: Nicola Morag
Job: Local politician
Suspected of: (1"embezzling _ _ _ ) funds and (2"counterfeiting"_ _ _ ) her boss's signature.

Names: Philip and Dwayne Johnstone
Job: Managing directors of Medicea pharmaceutical. Associates of Morag
Suspected of: counterfeiting products.
Possible involvement in (3 "laundering" _ _ _ ) money that Morag has stolen - evidence = numerous transactions in foreign bank accounts.

Morag is suspected of "embezzling" and """counterfeiting"" signatures, and the brothers of "laundering" money.

What crime do the police have evidence that Morag committed?Какое преступление полиция имеет доказательства, что Моrag совершил?