(ii) substantiation [logic: never really rose above = stayed below and difficult to prosecute infers of weak evidence]
(iii) overt [logic: exist at one point = plain agreement]
(i) collusion [logic: evidence disappeared before trial = deceitful agreement/misleading agreement]
These are the answers I thought! Apparently blank (ii) is innuendos though?
My guesses without looking at the answers:
- Corruption/Bad behavior/Price fixing
- something implicit, like hearsay
- explicit/prosecutable
Then I looked at the answers.
For 3, I picked overt because it was closest to my answer choice.
For 1, I was torn between Malfeasance and Collusion. Put a pin in it.
For 2, I picked innuendo since it was the closest to my original answer. (If it never rises above something implicit, then it’s hard to prosecute.)
Then for 1, I realized it said “between the two companies”. Can’t have malfeasance between two companies, that is more common for “malfeasance by one company”. Collusion requires two parties, so it must be collusion.
Collusion - Innuendo - Overt