White Collar Crime

White-collar crime refers to financially motivated nonviolent crime committed by business and government professionals. Within criminology, it was first defined by sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation".  


What Is White Collar Crime? 

Sutherland’s ‘approximate’ definition and the debates surrounding it led to much conceptual and linguistic confusion – as Nelken (1997a: 896) comments, ‘if Sutherland merited a Nobel prize, as Mannheim thought, for pioneering this field of study, he certainly did not deserve it for the clarity or serviceableness of his definition’. The key words and phrases ‘crime’, committed by ‘persons of respectability and high social status’, ‘in the course of’ an ‘occupation’ all lead to problems in determining which activities are to be included. The contentious issue of crime will be dealt with below, and this section will focus on social status and occupation. 

 One major problem is whether the occupational nature of the activities or the social characteristics of offenders should be the major defining feature. By including both, Sutherland sought to distinguish crimes associated with ‘respectable’ or legitimate occupations from the ‘ordinary’ crimes such as rape or murder of high-status individuals, and from the crimes of those whose occupation could be said to be ‘criminal’ – from what is more generally defined as organized or professional crime. This poses the immediate problem of how ‘high social status’ or ‘respectability’ are to be defined. Where is the line to be drawn in the occupational hierarchy? Although white collar crime is often associated with the crimes of senior management and executives, the term white collar is used to describe all non-manual workers, and any specific form of crime associated with occupations is likely to contain offenders from a wide spectrum of employment levels. Customers and employers can be defrauded by junior or senior sales personnel, and corporate executives, secretaries or porters can sell inside information, and people lie, cheat or commit sins of ‘omission’ up and down the occupational hierarchy. Occupational roles can therefore be abused in similar ways, irrespective of status. Although Sutherland talked of major corporations, small businesses can also be responsible for similar offences. Consumers can be ‘ripped off’ by local corner shops, market stalls or large manufacturers, and environmental pollution or safety offences in the workplace can be associated with ‘cowboy’ operators or large multinational conglomerates. 

 Some have consequently argued that the definition of white collar crime should include all crimes committed in the course of occupations and should be redefined as ‘occupational crime’, or it should be based on an abuse of occupational trust. This, however, removes what to many is the major feature of white collar crime – its association with high social status. It also makes the category extremely large, incorporating the ‘perks’, ‘fiddles’ and sabotage usually associated with ‘blue-collar’ occupations (Blue-collar crime is a term used to describe crimes that are committed primarily by people who are from a lower social class. This is in contrast to white-collar crime, which refers to crime that is usually committed by people from a higher social class); the insider dealing, embezzlement and fraud generally associated with higher-level employees; and offences involving the neglect of safety, health, consumer or environmental regulations associated primarily with companies. On the other hand, it could be argued that to draw a line between higherstatus and lower-status employees would be somewhat arbitrary and would preclude exploration of the different range of opportunities available to employees at different levels and the different ways in which their offences are perceived and subject to different kinds of sanctions. 

 A further difficulty of using the status of offenders as a starting point is that it incorporates assumptions that may predetermine research questions and analysis. To academics and general commentators, the key feature of white collar crime is the high status of offenders, which is assumed to lead to its different treatment in the criminal justice process. This can become a circular argument – if class and status are taken to be the defining point, and offenders are treated differently, this is then explained by the class and status of offenders to the exclusion of any other factor. Class and status are not therefore unimportant but are perhaps better perceived as related to rather than a key part of the definition

Varieties of White Collar Crime

The enormous range of activities encompassed by the category of white collar crime has inevitably led to attempts to divide it into subcategories, to provide researchers with a manageable group of offences and enable comparisons between offences. The status of offenders continues to be an important feature of these definitions, with some referring to elite crime or crimes of the powerful, and to corporate and state crime. Some activities can be seen as largely motivated by financial gain, whereas others intentionally or otherwise cause physical harms. Thus, some people distinguish financial white-collar crimes from others.  

 The distinction between occupational and organizational crime points to some major contrasts. Broadly speaking, occupational crime, a typical example of which is embezzlement, involves offenders, either individually or in groups, engaging in illegal or rule-breaking activities for personal gain at the expense of consumers, clients or employers. Organizational crime, on the other hand, a typical example of which is the neglect of safety regulations, does not involve personal gain, but may be seen as being ‘for the good of’ the organization by enhancing profitability or efficiency. Whereas occupational crime more obviously involves intent and individual responsibility, organizational crime illustrates the diffusion of responsibility. Where an employee neglects or violates a regulation, they can claim that it is ultimately the organization’s responsibility to ensure that regulations are complied with. This distinction parallels others.  

 Types of White-Collar Crimes
 White-collar crimes are as difficult to detect as they are easy to commit.  The detection mechanisms on which police and government traditionally rely seem singularly inadequate for this vast new body of crimes. Moreover, though people have learned through the ages to be wary of strangers on the street, they have not yet learned to protect themselves against vast enterprises 

 Eight categories of white-collar offenses committed by individuals can be identified:
• Securities-related crimes
• Bankruptcy fraud
• Fraud against the government
• Consumer fraud
• Insurance fraud
• Tax fraud
• Bribery, corruption, and political fraud
• Insider-related fraud