If you think that someone acting in the name of a company can act in his name there doesn't seem much to discuss.
If you think that someone acting in the name of a company can act in his name there doesn't seem much to discuss.
You're presupposing your conclusion and seem completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong.
I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that a representative of a company can't manage the company's funds however he wants is:
* what I've always known
* obvious on the face of it
* apparently confirmed by quick searches of terms like misappropriation and embezzlement
You seem to be just trying to win a debate competition and I have zero interest in that; especially since there isn't someone around to judge it.
I did and I've gotten the nth confirmation that you're not really reading what I write, and maybe not really here for a discussion
I know you're not supposed to say that here, but at this point I can't imagine you're doing anything else than trolling.