When only a very small amount of money has been embezzled: a. the company should transfer the perpetrator to a position with more supervision. b. the perpetrator should be punished by publishing the details of the fraud in the local newspapers. c. taking no action is the best course of action. d. the perpetrator should be prosecuted.

D) the perpetrator should be prosecuted.

Explanation:

There are 2 main things that we have to consider here:

What message does management want to send to their employees? If they allow someone that committed fraud to continue working on the company, the message will be loud and clear that fraud, embezzlement and theft are not important for them. This is not a very positive message. On the other hand, this type of events are better handled privately, at least at first with the company's lawyer and then with the police. What exactly is a small amount? Or did you only find out about a small amount, maybe the guy stole millions from the company and was caught when trying to steal $100. Any time an issue like this is discovered, the company must investigate to determine the full extent of the fraud.

a. the company should transfer the perpetrator to a position with more supervision

Explanation:

The fact that money has been embezzled shows that the internal controls of the firm are inherently week. However a small amount is immaterial to get the attention of the stakeholders but not something to ignore either as it shows inherent weekness of Company's internal controls. So transferring the perpetrator to a position with more supervision is the best option.