S E C T I O N

II
Understanding
White-Collar Crime
Definitions, Extent,
and Consequences

S ecti on Hi g h l i g h ts
•• White-Collar Crime: An Evolving Concept
•• Modern Conceptualizations of White-Collar Crime
•• Extent of White-Collar Crime
•• Consequences of White-Collar Crime
•• Public Attitudes About White-Collar Crime
•• Characteristics of White-Collar Offenders

A s noted in the introduction, Edwin Sutherland created the concept of white-collar crime more
than 70 years ago to draw attention to the fact that crimes are committed by individuals in all social
classes. As will be seen in this section, one of the largest difficulties in understanding white-collar
crime has centered on an ongoing debate about how to define white-collar crime. After discussing various
ways that white-collar crime can be defined, attention will be given to the extent of white-collar crime, the
consequences of this illicit behavior, public attitudes about white-collar crime, and patterns describing the
characteristics of white-collar offenders.

34
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 35

As a backdrop to this discussion, consider the following recent white-collar crimes described in
the media:

•• A jury convicted [then-Baltimore mayor Sheila] Dixon . . . of embezzling about $500 worth of gift
cards donated to the city for needy families. Dixon then pleaded guilty last month to lying about
thousands of dollars in gifts from her former boyfriend, a prominent developer. (Nuckols, 2010)
•• The money manager and technology investor convicted of stealing some $22 million from clients
and using his gains to support charitable causes in Colorado and elsewhere was sentenced in New
York Friday to nine years in federal prison. (Harden, 2010)
•• The secretary of a St. Peters business has been indicted in connection with the embezzlement of
$573,388 from her employer. (“Secretary Charged With Embezzling,” 2010)
•• A former Redondo Beach police officer accused of taking more than $75,000 from a law enforce-
ment officers’ association pleaded guilty . . . to one count of grand theft by embezzlement, authorities
said. (Lopez, 2010)
•• An employee at Goldman Sachs from May 2007 to June 2009 was arrested in July of 2009 and
charged with illegally transferring and downloading hundreds of thousands of lines of source code
for Goldman’s high-frequency trading system on his last day at the firm. (Heires, 2010)

In reviewing these cases, five questions come to mind. First, are each of these cases white-collar crimes?
Second, how often do these kinds of crimes occur? Third, what are the consequences of these crimes?
Fourth, how serious do you think these crimes are? Finally, who are the offenders in these cases? While the
questions are simple in nature, as will be shown in this section, the answers to these questions are not nec-
essarily quite so simple.

yy White-Collar Crime: An Evolving Concept

While Edwin Sutherland is the pioneer of the study of white-collar crime, the development of the field, and
the introduction of the concept of white-collar crime, did not occur in a vacuum. Indeed, prior academic
work and societal changes influenced Sutherland’s scholarship, and his scholarship, in turn, has had an
enormous influence on criminology and criminal justice. Tracing the source of the concept of white-collar
crime and describing its subsequent variations helps to demonstrate the importance of conceptualizing
various forms of white-collar misconduct.
Sutherland was not the first social scientist to write about crimes by those in the upper class. In his
1934 Criminology text, Sutherland used the term “white-collar criminaloid,” in reference to the “criminal-
oid concept” initially used by E. A. Ross (1907) in Sin and Society. Focusing on businessmen who engaged
in harmful acts under the mask of respectability, Ross further wrote that the criminaloid is “society’s most
dangerous foe, more redoubtable by far than the plain criminal, because he sports the livery of virtue and
operates on a titanic scale.” Building on these ideas, Sutherland called attention to the fact that crimes were
not committed only by members of the lower class. As noted in the introduction, Sutherland (1949) defined
white-collar crime as “crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of
his occupation.”
Sutherland’s appeal to social scientists to expand their focus to include crimes by upper class offenders
was both applauded and criticized. On the one hand, Sutherland was lauded for expanding the focus of the
36 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

social sciences. On the other hand, the way that Sutherland defined and studied white-collar crime was
widely criticized by a host of social scientists and legal experts. Much of the criticism centered around five
concerns that scholars had about Sutherland’s use of the white-collar crime concept. These concerns
included (1) conceptual ambiguity, (2) empirical ambiguity, (3) methodological ambiguity, (4) legal ambi-
guity, and (5) policy ambiguity.
In terms of conceptual ambiguity, critics have noted that white-collar crime was vaguely and loosely
defined by Sutherland (Robin, 1974). Robin further argued that the vagueness surrounding the definition
fostered ambiguous use of the term and vague interpretations by scholars and practitioners alike. Focusing
on the link between scholarship and practice, one author suggested that the concept was “totally inadequate”
to characterize the kinds of behavior that are at the root of the phenomena (Edelhertz, 1983). Further
describing the reactions to this conceptual ambiguity, white-collar crime scholar David Friedrichs (2002)
wrote, “perhaps no other area of criminological theory has been more plagued by conceptual confusion than
that of white-collar crime” (p. 243).
Criticism about Sutherland’s work also focused on the empirical ambiguity surrounding the concept.
In effect, some argued that the concept only minimally reflected reality. For example, one author said that
Sutherland’s definition underestimated the influence of poverty on other forms of crime (Mannheim, 1949).
Another author argued that by focusing on the offender (in terms of status) and the location (the work-
place) rather than the offense, the concept did not accurately reflect the behaviors that needed to be
addressed (Edelhertz, 1983). Edelhertz went as far as to suggest that this vague empirical conceptualization
created barriers with practitioners and resulted in a lack of research on white-collar crime between the
1950s and 1970s. Shapiro (1990) also recognized the problems that the conceptualization of white-collar
crime created for future researchers. She wrote:

The concept has done its own cognitive mischief. It . . . is founded on a spurious correlation that
causes sociologists to misunderstand the structural impetus for these offenses, the problems the
offenses create for systems of social control, and the sources and consequences of class bias in the
legal system. (p. 346)

The consequences of this empirical ambiguity are such that findings from white-collar crime studies
sometimes call into question the nature of white-collar offenders. One study of white-collar offenders con-
victed in seven federal districts between 1976 and 1978, for example, found that most offenses described as
white-collar were actually “committed by those who fall in the middle classes of our society” (Weisburd,
Chayet, & Waring, 1990, p. 353).
Sutherland was also criticized for methodological ambiguity. He defined white-collar crime as
behaviors committed by members of the upper class, but his research focused on all sorts of offenses includ-
ing workplace theft, fraud by mechanics, deception by shoe sales persons, and crimes by corporations (see
Robin, 1974). One might say that Sutherland committed a “bait and switch” in defining one type of crime,
but actually researching another variety.
A fourth criticism of Sutherland’s white-collar crime scholarship can be termed legal ambiguity. Some
legal scholars contended that the concept was too sociological at the expense of legal definitions of white-
collar offending (Tappan, 1947). To some, white-collar crimes should be narrowly defined to include those
behaviors that are criminally illegal. Some even take it a step farther and suggest that white-collar criminals
are those individuals convicted of white-collar crimes (suggesting that if one were not caught for a white-
collar crime one actually committed, then one would not be a white-collar criminal). Sutherland, and others,
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 37

have countered this argument by suggesting that conviction is irrelevant in determining whether behaviors
constitute white-collar crimes (Geis, 1978).
A final criticism of the white-collar crime concept is related to the policy ambiguity surrounding the con-
cept. In particular, some have argued that the vagueness of the definition, and its purely academic focus, created a
disconnect between those developing policies and practices responding to white-collar crime and those studying
white-collar crime (Edelhertz, 1983). Over the past decade or so, criminologists have become more vocal about the
need for evidence-based practices to guide criminal justice policies and activities. In terms of white-collar crime,
an issue that has been cited is that unclear definitions about white-collar crime make it extremely difficult for
policy makers and practitioners to use criminological information to guide policy development and criminal
justice practices. In effect, how can criminologists call for evidence-based practices for certain types of crime
when they have not adequately provided the evidence needed to develop subsequent practices?
Sutherland was aware of the concerns about the concept potentially being vague. He noted that his
point was not precision, but to note how white-collar crime is “identical in its general characteristics with
other crime rather than different from it” (Sutherland, 1941, p. 112). He wrote:

The purpose of the concept of white-collar crime is to call attention to a vast area of criminal
behavior which is generally overlooked as criminal behavior, which is seldom brought within the
score of the theories of criminal behavior, and which, when included, call for modifications in the
usual theories of criminal behavior. (p. 112)

Thus, Sutherland conceded that the concept was vague in nature, but it was necessarily vague in order
to promote further discussion about the concept.
Sutherland was successful in promoting further discussion about the phenomena, though the topic
received very little attention in the 1950s and 1960s. This began to change in the early 1970s when crimi-
nologists Marshall Clinard and Richard Quinney published Criminal Behavior Systems. Building on
Sutherland’s work, Clinard and Quinney (1973) argued that white-collar crime can be divided into two
types: corporate crime and occupational crime. They focused their definition of corporate crime on illegal
behaviors that are committed by employees of a corporation to benefit the corporation, company, or busi-
ness. In contrast, they defined occupational crime as “violations of legal codes in the course of activity in
a legitimate occupation.” By distinguishing between crimes by corporations and crimes against corpora-
tions, Clinard and Quinney took an important step in addressing some of the ambiguity surrounding the
white-collar crime concept. Indeed, corporate crime and occupational crime are viewed as “the two princi-
pal or ‘pure’ forms of white-collar crime” (Friedrichs, 2002, p. 245).
After Clinard and Quinney’s work, white-collar crime research by criminologists escalated in the 1970s
and 1980s. Much of this research focused on ways to conceptualize and define the phenomenon in ways that
addressed the criticisms surrounding Sutherland’s definition. Table 2.1 shows eight different concepts and
definitions that criminologists have used to describe these behaviors. Just as Sutherland’s definition was
criticized, each of the concepts provided in Table 2.1 are imperfect. Still, they illustrate the impact that
Sutherland’s white-collar crime scholarship has had on criminology and criminal justice.
A definition of white-collar crime acceptable to all groups is yet to be developed. This is troublesome for
at least five reasons. First, the lack of a sound definition of white-collar crime has hindered detection efforts.
Second, without a concrete definition of white-collar crime, the most effective responses to the problem can-
not be gauged. Third, varying definitions among researchers have made it difficult to draw comparisons
between different white-collar crime studies. Fourth, vague conceptualizations have made it more difficult to
38 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

Table 2.1   Evolution of the White-Collar Crime Concept

Concept Definition Reference

Criminaloid The immunity enjoyed by the perpetrator of new sins has brought into E.A. Ross (Sin and
being a class for which we may coin the term criminaloid. By this we Society, 1907, p. 48)
designate such as prosper by flagitious practices which have not yet come
under the effective ban of public opinion. Often, indeed, they are guilty in
the eyes of the law; but since they are not culpable in the eyes of the
public and in their own eyes, their spiritual attitude is not that of the
criminal. The lawmaker may make their misdeeds crimes, but, so long as
morality stands stock-still in the old tracks, they escape both punishment
and ignominy.

White-collar Crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in Sutherland (1949)
crime the course of his occupation.

Corporate Offenses committed by corporate officials for their corporation and the Clinard and Yeager
crime offenses of the corporation itself. (1980, p. 189)

Occupational Offenses committed by individuals in the course of their occupations and Clinard and Yeager
crime the offenses of employees against their employers. (1980, p. 189).

Organizational Actions contrary to norms maintained by others outside the Ermann and Lundman
deviance organization . . . [but] supported by the internal operating norms of the (1978, p. 7)
organization.

Elite deviance Acts committed by persons from the highest strata of society . . . some Simon (2006, p. 12)
acts are crimes . . . may be criminal or noncriminal in nature.

Organizational Illegal acts of omission or commission of an individual or a group of Schrager and Short,
crime individuals in a formal organization in accordance with the operative goals (1978, p. 408)
of the organization, which have serious physical or economic impact on
employees, consumers, or the general public.

Occupational Any act punishable by law which is committed through opportunity Green (1990)
crime created in the course of an occupation that is legitimate.

identify the causes of the behavior. Finally, varied definitions of white-collar crime have made it difficult to
determine with great accuracy the true extent of white-collar crime.

yy Modern Conceptualizations of White-Collar Crime

Today, criminologists and social scientists offer various ways to define white-collar crime (see Figure 2.1).
These variations tend to overlap with one another and include the following:

•• White-collar crime as moral or ethical violations

•• White-collar crime as social harm
•• White-collar crime as violations of criminal law
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 39

•• White-collar crime as violations of civil law

•• White-collar crime as violations of regulatory laws
•• White-collar crime as workplace deviance
•• White-collar crime as definitions socially constructed by businesses
•• White-collar crime as research definitions
•• White-collar crime as official government definitions
•• White-collar crime as violations of trust
•• White-collar crime as occupational crimes
•• White-collar crime as violations occurring in occupational systems

Figure 2.1   Defining White-Collar Crime

Moral or
Violations ethical
occuring in violations
Social harm
occupational
systems

Occupational Violations of
crimes criminal law

White-Collar
Violations of Violations of
Crime
trust civil law
Definitions

Official Violations of
government regulatory
definitions laws

Research Workplace
definitions Definitions deviance
socially
constructed
by businesses
40 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

Defining white-collar crime as moral or ethical violations follows ideals inherent within principles of
what is known as natural law. Natural law focuses on behaviors or activities that are defined as wrong
because they violate the ethical principles of a particular culture, subculture, or group. The immoral nature
of the activities is seen as the foundation for defining certain types of white-collar activities as criminal.
Some individuals, for example, define any business activities that destroy animal life or plant life as immoral
and unethical. To those individuals, the behaviors of individuals and businesses participating in those
activities would be defined as white-collar crimes.
Some prefer to define white-collar crime as violations of criminal law. From this framework, white-
collar crimes are criminally illegal behaviors committed by upper class individuals during the course of
their occupation. From a systems perspective, those working in the criminal justice system would likely
define white-collar crime as criminally illegal behaviors. Crime, in this context, is defined as “an intentional
act or omission committed in violation of the criminal law without defense or justification and sanctioned
by the state as a felony or misdemeanor” (Tappan, 1960, p. 10). Applying a criminal law definition to white-
collar crime, white-collar crimes are those criminally illegal acts committed during the course of one’s job.
Here are a few examples:

•• An accountant embezzles funds from his employer.

•• Two nurses steal drugs from their workplace and sell them to addicts.
•• A financial investor steals investors’ money.
•• A prosecutor accepts a bribe to drop criminal charges.
•• Two investors share inside information that allow them to redirect their stock purchases.
•• A disgruntled employee destroys the computer records of a firm upon her resignation.

These acts are instances where the criminal law has been violated during the course of employment. As
such, members of the criminal justice could be called upon to address those misdeeds.
Certainly, some rule breaking during the course of employment does not rise to the level of criminal
behavior, but it may violate civil laws. Consequently, some may define white-collar crime as violations of
civil law. Consider cases of corporate wrongdoing against consumers. In those situations, it is rare that the
criminal law would be used to respond to the offending corporation. More often, cases are brought into the
civil justice system. When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and caused
untold damage to the environment, for example, the case was brought into the civil justice system. Eventually
it was learned that the cause of the crash could be attributed to the ship’s overworked crew. To date, Exxon
has paid $2 billion in cleanup efforts and another $1 billion in fines. Ongoing legal battles are focusing on
whether Exxon should pay even more in damages.
Individuals have also defined white-collar crime as violations of regulatory law. Some workplace
misdeeds might not violate criminal or civil laws, but may violate a particular occupation’s regulatory laws.
Most occupations and businesses have standards, procedures, and regulations that are designed to admin-
istratively guide and direct workplace activities. The nursing home industry provides a good example. The
government has developed a set of standards that nursing home administrators are expected to follow in
providing care to nursing home residents. At different times during the year, government officials inspect
nursing homes to see if they are abiding by the regulations. In most instances, some form of wrongdoing is
uncovered. These instances of wrongdoing, however, are not violations of criminal law or civil law; rather,
they are violations of regulatory law. Hence, some authors focus on white-collar crimes as violations of
regulatory laws.
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 41

Sometimes behaviors performed as part of an occupational routine might be wrong, but not necessar-
ily illegal by criminal, civil, or regulatory definitions. As a result, some prefer to follow definitions of white-
collar crime as workplace deviance. This is a broader way to define white-collar crime, and such an
approach would include all of those workplace acts that violate the norms or standards of the workplace,
regardless of whether they are formally defined as illegal or not. Violations of criminal, civil, and regulatory
laws would be included, as would those violations that are set by the workplace itself. Beyond those formal
violations of the law, consider the following situations as examples of workplace deviance:

•• Professors cancel class simply because they don’t feel like going to class.
•• A worker takes a 30-minute break when she was only supposed to take a 15-minute break.
•• A worker calls his boss and says he is too sick to come to work when in fact he is not actually sick
(but he uses that “fake sick voice” as part of his ploy).
•• A wedding photographer gets drunk at a client’s wedding, takes horrible pictures, and hits on the
groom.
•• An author uses silly examples to try to get his point across.

In each of these cases, no laws have necessarily been broken; however, one could argue that workplace
or occupational norms may have been violated.
Somewhat related, one can also define white-collar crime as definitions socially constructed by busi-
nesses. What this means is that a particular company or business might define behaviors that it believes to be
improper. What is wrong in one company might not necessarily be wrong in another company. Some busi-
nesses might have formal dress codes while others might have casual Fridays. Some companies might tolerate
workers taking small quantities of the goods it produces home each night, while other companies might define
that behavior as inappropriate and criminal. The expectations for workplace behavior, then, are defined by the
workplace. Incidentally, some experts have suggested that expectations be defined in such a way as to accept at
least minor forms of wrongdoing (see Mars, 1983, for a description of the rewards individuals perceive from
workplace misconduct). The basis for this suggestion is that individuals are more satisfied with their jobs if
they are able to break the rules of their job at least every now and then. As a simple example, where would you
rather work: (1) in a workplace that lets you get away with longer breaks every now and then or (2) in a work-
place where you are docked double pay for every minute you take over the allotted break?
In some cases, workplace behaviors might not be illegal or deviant, but might actually create forms of
harm for various individuals. As a result, some prefer to define white-collar crime as social harm. Those
defining white-collar crime from this perspective are more concerned with the harm done by occupational
activities than whether behavior is defined either formally or informally as illegal or deviant. According to
one author, “by concentrating on what is defined as illegal or criminal, a more serious threat to society is left
out” (Passas, 2005, p. 771). Galbraith (2005, p. 731) offers the following examples: “The common practices
of tobacco companies, hog farmers, gun makers and merchants are legal. But this is only because of the
political nature of the perpetrators; in a democracy free of their money and influence, they would be
crimes.” Additional examples of white-collar crimes that are examples of this social harm perspective have
been noted by Passas (2005), who highlighted the following “crimes” that occur without lawbreaking occur-
ring: cross-border malpractices, asymmetrical environmental regulations, corrupt practices, child labor in
impoverished communities, and pharmaceutical practices such as those allowing testing of drugs in third
world countries. Passas emphasized that lawbreaking does not occur when these actions are performed, but
argues the actions are, in fact, criminal.
42 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

Another way to define these behaviors is to consider white-collar crime as research definitions.
When researchers study and gather data about white-collar crime, they must operationalize or define
white-collar crime in a way that allows them to reliably and validly measure the behavior. As an example,
in 2005, the National White-Collar Crime Center conducted its second national survey on white-collar
crime. The results of this survey will be discussed later. For now, the way that the researchers defined
white-collar crime illustrates what is meant by research-generated white-collar crime definitions. The
researchers defined white-collar crime as: “illegal or unethical acts that violate fiduciary responsibility or
public trust for personal or organizational gain” (Kane & Wall, 2006). Using this definition as their foun-
dation, the researchers were able to conduct a study that measured the characteristics of white-collar
crime, its consequences, and contributing factors. Note that had they chosen a different definition, their
results may have been different. The way that we define phenomena will influence the observations we
make about those phenomena.
Another way to define these behaviors is to consider white-collar crime as official government defini-
tions. Government agencies, and employees of those agencies, will have definitions of white-collar crime
that may or may not parallel the way others define white-collar crime. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), for example, has used an offense-based perspective to define white-collar crime as part of its Uniform
Crime Reporting program. The FBI defines white-collar crime as:

Those illegal acts which are characterized by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust and which
are not dependent upon the application or threat of physical force or violence. Individuals and
organizations commit these acts to obtain money, property, or services; to avoid payment or loss
of money or services; or to secure personal or business advantage. (United States Department of
Justice, 1989, p. 3; as cited in Barnett, no date)

In following this definition, the FBI tends to take a broader definition of white-collar crime than many
white-collar crime scholars and researchers do. Identity theft offers a case in point. The FBI includes identity
theft as a white-collar crime type. Some academics, however, believe that such a classification is inappropri-
ate. One research team conducted interviews with 59 convicted identity thieves and found that offenses and
offenders did not meet the traditional characteristics of white-collar crimes or white-collar offenders. Many
offenders were unemployed and working independently, meaning their offenses were not committed as part
of a legitimate occupation, or in the course of their occupation (Copes & Vieraitis, 2009).
Another way to define white-collar crime is to focus on white-collar crime as violations of trust that
occur during the course of legitimate employment. To some authors, offenders use their positions of trust
to promote the misconduct (Reiss & Biderman, 1980). Criminologist Susan Shapiro (1990) has argued for
the need to view white-collar crime as abuses of trust and she suggests that researchers should focus on the
act rather than the actor. She wrote:

Offenders clothed in very different wardrobes lie, steal, falsify, fabricate, exaggerate, omit, deceive,
dissemble, shirk, embezzle, misappropriate, self-deal, and engage in corruption or incompliance
by misusing their positions of trust. It turns out most of them are not upper class. (p. 358)

In effect, Shapiro was calling for a broader definition of white-collar crime that was not limited to the
collar of the offender’s shirts.
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 43

Others have also called for broader conceptualizations that are not limited to wardrobes or occupa-
tional statuses. Following Clinard and Quinney’s 1973 conceptualization, some have suggested that these
behaviors be classified as white-collar crimes as occupational crimes. One author defines occupational
crimes as “violations that occur during the course of occupational activity and are related to employment”
(Robin, 1974). Robin argued vehemently for the broader conceptualization of white-collar crime. He noted
that various forms of lower class workplace offenses “are more similar to white-collar crime methodologi-
cally than behaviorally,” suggesting that many occupational offenders tend to use the same methods to
commit their transgressions. He further stated that the failure of scholars to broadly conceive white-collar
crime “results in underestimating the amount of crime, distorts relative frequencies of the typology of
crimes, produces a biased profile of the personal and social characteristics of the violators, and thus affects
our theory of criminality” (p. 261).
Criminologist Gary Green (1990) has been a strong advocate of focusing on occupational crime rather
than a limited conceptualization of white-collar crime. He defined occupational crime as “any act punish-
able by law which is committed through opportunity created in the course of an occupation that is legal”
(p. 13). Green described four varieties of occupational crime: (1) organizational occupational crimes, which
include crimes by corporations, (2) state authority occupational crimes, which include crimes by govern-
ments, (3) professional occupational crimes, which include those crimes by individuals in upper class jobs,
and (4) individual occupational crimes, which include those crimes committed by individuals in lower class
jobs. The strength of his conceptualization is that it expands white-collar crime to consider all forms of
misdeeds committed by employees and businesses during the course of employment.
Using each of the above definitions as a framework, white-collar crime can also be defined as violations
occurring in occupational systems. This text uses such a framework to provide broad systems perspective
about white-collar crime. White-collar crime can therefore be defined as “any violation of criminal, civil, or
regulatory laws—or deviant, harmful, or unethical actions—committed during the course of employment
in various occupational systems.” This definition allows us to consider numerous types of workplace mis-
conduct and the interactions between these behaviors and broader systems involved in preventing and
responding to white-collar crimes. As will be shown in the following paragraphs, the extent of these crimes
is enormous.

yy Extent of White-Collar Crime

Determining the extent of white-collar crime is no simple task. Two factors make it particularly difficult to
accurately determine how often white-collar crimes occur. First, many white-collar crimes are not reported
to formal response agencies. One study found that just one third of white-collar crime victims notify the
authorities about their victimization (Kane & Wall, 2006). When individuals are victims of white-collar
crimes, they may not report the victimization because of shame, concerns that reporting will be futile, or a
general denial that the victimization was actually criminal. When businesses or companies are victims, they
may refrain from reporting out of concern about the negative publicity that comes along with “being duped”
by an employee. If victims are not willing to report their victimization, their victimization experiences will
not be included in official statistics.
A second factor that makes it difficult to determine the extent of white-collar crime has to do with the
conceptual ambiguity surrounding the concept (and discussed above). Depending on how one defines
white-collar crime, one would find different estimates about the extent of white-collar crime. The federal
44 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

government, and other government agencies, offer different definitions of white-collar crime than many
scholars and researchers might use. The result is that white-collar crime researchers typically observe
caution when relying on official statistics or victimization surveys to determine the extent of white-collar
crime victimization. Despite this caution, the three main ways that we learn about the extent of white-collar
crime are from official statistics provided by government agencies, victimization surveys, and research
studies focusing on specific types of white-collar crime.
With regard to official statistics and white-collar crime, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and
National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) provide at least a starting point from which we can
begin to question how often certain forms of white-collar crime occur. These data reflect crimes known to
the police. The UCR includes eight Part I (or index offenses: homicide, robbery, rape, aggravated assault,
motor vehicle theft, larceny, arson, and burglary) and 29 Part II offenses, which are typically defined as “less
serious” crimes. With regard to white-collar crime, Part II offenses have been regarded as possible white-
collar crimes. Table 2.2 shows the number of times these crimes occurred between 1990 and 2008. As shown
in the table, the number of forgery/counterfeiting and embezzlement cases increased somewhat dramati-
cally between 1990 and 2009, while the number of fraud cases was lower in 2009 than in 1992, though the
number of fraud cases fluctuated significantly over this time frame. Also, note the increase in all arrests for
all three offense types between 2008 and 2009.
A word of caution is needed in reviewing these estimates. Not all criminologists agree that these
offenses are appropriate indicators of white-collar crimes. Many of these offenses may have occurred
outside of the scope of employment. Also, because the UCR does not capture information about
offender status, it is not possible to classify the crimes according to the occupational systems where the
offenses occurred.
Limitations in the UCR prompted the federal government to expand its efforts in reporting crime data
through the National Incident Based Reporting System. NIBRS data provide more contextual information
surrounding the crimes reported to the police. For example, this reporting system provides information
about where the crime occurred, the victim-offender relationship, victim characteristics, and so on. While
more contextual information is provided from NIBRS
data, the same limitations that plague the UCR data
with regard to the measurement of white-collar crime
surface: (1) not everyone would agree these are white-
collar crimes, (2) the database was created for law
enforcement and not for researchers, (3) many cases
are reported to regulatory agencies rather than law
enforcement, (4) some white-collar crime victims are
unaware of their victimization, and (5) shame may
keep some victims from reporting their victimization
(Barnett, no date). Also, the NIBRS data are not as
“user friendly” as UCR data at this point.
Victimization surveys offer an opportunity to
overcome some of these problems. These surveys
▲ Photo 2.1   Most victims of white-collar crime do not call
sample residents and estimate the extent of victimiza-
the police. As a result, using police-based data to examine tion from the survey findings. The 2005 National
white-collar crime offers a limited picture of white-collar crime. White-Collar Crime Center (NW3C) Victimization
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 45

Table 2.2   Arrests Reported in UCR for Three “White-Collar” Offenses, 1990–2009, U.S. Department of
  Justice, Available online.

Year Forgery/Counterfeiting Embezzlement Fraud

1990 50403   7708 182752

1991 53853   7458 188100

1992 66608   8860 279682

1993 69063   8886 246127

1994 71322   9155 233234

1995 84068 10832 295584

1996 81319 11763 248370

1997 77773 10935 298713

1998 70678 10585 220262

1999 56813   9692 166413

2000 58493 10730 155231

2001 77692 13836 211177

2002 83111 13416 233087

2003 79188 11986 208469

2004 73082 9164 235412

2005 87346 14097 231721

2006 79477 14769 197722

2007 78005 17015 185229

2008 68976 16458 174598

2009 85844 17920 210255

Survey is the most recent, and most comprehensive, white-collar crime victimization survey available. The
results of this survey, a phone interview with 1,605 adults in the United States, found that 46.5% of house-
holds and 36% of individuals reported experiencing forms of white-collar crime in the prior year (Kane &
Wall, 2006). Nearly two thirds of the respondents reported experiencing some form of white-collar victim-
ization (as measured by the researchers) in their life time.
46 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

Table 2.3   Household Victimization

Table 2.3 shows the types of victimization reported by
  Trends (12 months) respondents in the NW3C victimization survey. As shown in the
table, more than a third of the respondents indicated that they
had been lied to about prices in the prior year, and one fourth
False stockbrocker info   4.4% reported being victims of credit card fraud. Also, about one fifth
reported being victimized by unnecessary object repairs and
Illegitimate e-mail   5.5%
corporate scandals.
Business venture   5.9% The NW3C also asked victims about their decisions to report
their victimization to various agencies. Table 2.4 shows the formal
New account fraud   8.1% agencies that respondents reported their victimization to (among
Unnecessary repair (home) 11.7%
those who did report the victimization). As shown in the table,
respondents tended to report their victimization either to their
Monetary loss (Internet) 12.4% credit card company or the entity involved. Perhaps most interest-
ing is how infrequently respondents reported their victimization
Existing account fraud 12.6%
to formal governmental agencies of social control. Less than one
Unnecessary repair (object) 20.8% fifth of respondents reported their victimization to the police, one
seventh of them notified the Better Business Bureau, one in 14
Affected by national corporate scandal 21.4% notified the district attorney, and about one in 20 notified a per-
Credit card fraud 24.5% sonal lawyer or the consumer protection agency.
Researchers have also used specific studies to gauge the
Price lie 35.9% extent of various forms of white-collar crime. One author, for
example, cites a study by the Government Accountability Office
that found fraud in “every single case” of the Savings and Loan
Table 2.4  Household Victimization institutions included in the study (Galbraith, 2005). Another
  Reporting Trends study found that one in 30 employees (out of 2.1 million employ-
ees) was caught stealing from his or her employer in 2007
(“Record Number of Shoplifters,” 2008). A Federal Trade
Internet crime complaint center   2.6% Commission (FTC) survey of 2,500 adults in the United States
found that consumer fraud was rampant (Anderson, 2004). Based
Consumer Protection Agency   4.5%
on the survey findings, Anderson estimates that “nearly 25 million
Personal lawyer   4.9% adults in the United States—11.2% of the adult population—
were victims of one or more of the consumer frauds covered in
District attorney or state attorney   7.7% the survey during the previous year” (p. ES-2). Anderson fur-
general
ther estimated that 35 million cases of consumer fraud occur
Better Business Bureau 14.2% each year.
Figure 2.2 shows the extent of the types of consumer fraud
Police/law enforcement 19.3% considered in the FTC survey. As shown in the figure, the most
Entity involved 31.8% common frauds were paying an advanced fee for a loan/credit
card, fraudulent billing for buyers’ club memberships, and pur-
Other 32.1% chasing credit card insurance. Note that these are only estimates
about the extent of victimization. Accurately determining the
Credit card company 34.9%
extent of white-collar crime remains a difficult task.
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 47

Figure 2.2   Common Types of Consumer Fraud

0
Paid an
Billed for Purchased Purchased Paid money or Billed for Purchased a
advance
buyers’ club credit card credit repair made a Internet membership
fee to obtain
memberships insurance purchase to services you in a pyramid
a loan or
you did not receive a did not agree scheme
credit card
agree to promised prize to purchase
that you were
purchase and did not
promised or
receive the
guaranteed
prize or was not
you would
as promised
receive
Number of victims (millions of adults) Number of incidents (millions)

While it is difficult to gauge the extent of white-collar crime, all indications are that these offenses occur
with great regularity. The regularity of these offenses exacerbates their consequences.

yy Consequences of White-Collar Crime

Crime, by its very nature, has consequences for individuals and communities. White-collar crime, in particu-
lar, has a set of consequences that may be significantly different from the kinds of consequences that arise
from street crimes. In particular, the consequences can be characterized as (1) individual economic losses,
(2) societal economic losses, (3) emotional consequences, (4) physical harm, and (5) “positive” consequences.
Individual economic losses refer to the losses that individual victims or business lose due to
white-collar crimes. One way that criminologists have captured these losses is to compare them to losses
48 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

experienced by victims of conventional crimes. By some estimates, the average amount lost to embezzlement,
for example, is about $1,000,000 (“The Marquette Report,” 2009). By comparison, consider the following:

•• The average street/highway robbery entails losses of $1,032

•• The average gas station robbery entails losses of $1,007
•• The average convenience store robbery entails losses of $712 (Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2009b).

It is important to note that a small group of offenders can create large dollar losses. One study found
that 27 white-collar offenders were responsible for dollar losses in the amount of $2,494,309 (Crofts, 2003).
Each offender stole an average of $95,935. Other studies have also found large dollar losses as a central
feature of white-collar crimes (Wheeler, Weisburd, & Bode, 1988). In fact, Sutherland (1949) argued that
white-collar crimes cost several times more than street crimes in terms of financial losses. While his esti-
mate may be a little dated, the fact remains that a white-collar crime will likely cause larger dollar losses to
victims than a street crime would.
Societal economic losses entail the total amount of losses incurred by society from white-collar crime.
Kane and Wall (2006) cite estimates suggesting that white-collar crime costs the United States between $300
and $600 billion a year in financial losses. These costs are increased when considering the secondary societal
economic costs such as business failures and recovery costs. In terms of business failures, one estimate sug-
gests that one third to one half of business failures are attributed to employee theft (National White Collar
Crime Center, 2009). With regard to recovery costs, taxpayers pay billions of dollars to support the efforts of the
criminal, civil, and regulatory justice systems. As an illustration of how these costs can quickly add up, one
white-collar criminal involved in a $7 million Ponzi scheme eventually lost everything and was unable to afford
his own attorney. In this case, the federal public defender’s office was assigned the task of representing the
accused (Henning, 2010). Attorney costs in white-collar crime cases are believed to be particularly exorbitant.
Emotional consequences are also experienced by victims of white-collar crime and all members of
society exposed to this misconduct. These emotional consequences include stress from victimization, viola-
tion of trust, and damage to public morale. With regard to stress, any experience of victimization is stressful,
but the experience of white-collar crime victimization is believed to be particularly stressful. Much of the
stress stems from the violation of trust that comes along with white-collar crimes.
According to Sutherland (1941), the violation of trust can be defined as the “most general” character-
istic of white-collar crime. Victims of a street robbery didn’t trust the stranger who robbed them in the first
place. Victims of a white-collar crime, in addition to the other losses incurred from the victimization, have
their trust violated by the offender. There is reason to believe that the level of trust may be tied to the specific
level of trust given to different types of white-collar offenders (e.g., we trust doctors and pharmacists at a
certain level, but auto mechanics on another level).
Researchers have used various strategies to consider how these trust violations manifest themselves in
white-collar crimes. Spalek (2001) interviewed 25 individuals who lost some of their pension funds to a
fraudulent scheme by Robert Maxwell. She focused on the degree to which victimization bred distrust. She
found that many of the victims already distrusted their offender before the victimization came to light. The
victims said that they felt forced or coerced into trusting the offender as part of his investment scheme. In
terms of trust, they placed their trust in outside agencies to protect them from the offender. The following
comments from Spalek’s participants highlight this pattern:
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 49

•• I’ve always mistrusted Maxwell. But I felt that because pensioners were, to a large extent, the prov-
ince of the state . . . that there was very little Maxwell could do to make off with the money.
•• I suppose at the time I actually thought that the law would actually safeguard against anything that
was mine so I wasn’t too worried about it, although I thought that Maxwell would do his best to get
his hands on the money (n.p.).

With regard to public alienation, violations of trust potentially do damage to the economy and social
relationships. According to Frankel (2006), “with few exceptions, trust is essential to economic prosperity”
(p. 49). If individuals do not trust financial institutions, they are not likely to invest their funds in the
economy. Sutherland (1941) recognized this relationship between trust, the economy, and social relation-
ships. He wrote:

The financial loss from white-collar crime, great as it is, is less important than the damage to social
relations. White-collar crime violates trust and therefore creates distrust; this lowers social morale
and produces disorganization. Many white-collar crimes attack the fundamental principles of the
American institutions. Ordinary crimes, on the other hand, produce little effect on social institu-
tions or social organization. (p. 13)

Building on Sutherland’s ideas, Moore and Mills (1990) described the following consequences of white-
collar crime:

•• Diminished faith in a free economy and in business leaders

•• Erosion of public morality
•• Loss of confidence in political institutions,
processes, and leaders

Physical harm may also result from white-collar

crime victimization. Sometimes, physical harm may be
a direct result of the white-collar offense. For example,
cases of physical or sexual patient abuse will result in
physical harm for victims. Other times, experiencing
financial harm can lead to physical problems. The loss
of one’s entire retirement savings, for example, has been
found to contribute to health problems for white-collar
crime victims (Payne, 2005).
Death or serious physical injury is also a possible
consequence of white-collar crimes. In one case, for ▲ Photo 2.2   In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez
instance, seven people died after a doctor “used lemon grounding, workers worked tirelessly to eradicate harmful effects
juice instead of antiseptic on patients’ operation of the white-collar offense. Researchers have not yet been able to
wounds” (Ninemsn Staff, 2010). In another case, identify the full extent of the consequences of this disaster.
Reinaldo Silvestre was running a medical clinic in
Miami Beach when it was discovered that he was practicing without a license, using animal tranquilizers as
sedatives for humans, and performing botched surgeries. In a widely publicized case, a male body builder
50 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

was given female C-cup breast implants—he had requested pectoral implants to make his chest look bigger
(“Fugitive Phony Doctor Nabbed,” 2004).
It is possible to more generally highlight the physical harm stemming from white-collar crime.
Consider the following estimates, quoted verbatim from their sources:

•• Research from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission indicates that defective or unsafe
products cause 29.4 million injuries and 21,400 deaths each year. (Ria, 2009)
•• As many as 231,000 people have died from asbestos-related diseases in the U.S. since 1980; an equal
number could die by 2040 according to testimony given at the [Senate] hearing. Dr. David Weissman,
from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, informed the Senate Committee that
deaths from the asbestos cancer mesothelioma are increasing. (Kazen-Allen, 2007)
•• At least 12,000 Americans die each year from unnecessary surgery, according to a Journal of
the American Medical Association report. And tens of thousands more suffer complications.
(Black, 2005)
•• An estimated 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed each year,
writes Gary Null, PhD, in Death by Medicine. (Black, 2005)
•• An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical
errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. (Loughran, 2004)
•• The National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment . . . study is used by the EPA to identify parts of the coun-
try where residents could face the greatest health threats from air pollution. . . . Almost 2.2 million
people lived in neighborhoods where pollution raised the risk of developing cancer to levels the
government generally considers to be unacceptable. (Heath & Morrison, 2009)

In line with the objective approach presented in Section I, it is important to stress that not all conse-
quences of white-collar crime are necessarily bad. Sociologist Emile Durkheim has highlighted four func-
tions of crime that illustrate how crime in some ways has positive influences on individuals and
communities (see Martin et al., 2009). These four functions can also be applied to white-collar crime. They
include: warning light syndrome, boundary maintenance, social change, and community integration.
The warning light syndrome refers to the fact that outbreaks of white-collar crime could potentially send
a message to individuals, businesses, or communities that something is wrong in a particular workplace sys-
tem. If an outbreak of employee theft occurs in a hospital, for example, the administrators would be warned
that they need to address those aspects of the occupational routines that allowed the misconduct to occur.
In terms of boundary maintenance, it is plausible to suggest that individuals learn the rules of the
workplace when some individuals are caught breaking those rules. In effect, they learn the boundaries of
appropriate and acceptable behaviors by seeing some individuals step over those boundaries. Some even
recommend that white-collar offenders, when caught, be arrested at times when the vast majority of work-
ers would be able to see the arrests (Payne & Gray, 2001). This recommendation is promoting a strategy to
promote boundary maintenance.
With regard to social change, our society has changed significantly because of white-collar misdeeds.
Some people have talked about how survivors of violent crime actually become stronger because of their
experience with violence. Following this same line of thinking, those who survive white-collar crime victim-
ization might actually become stronger. As well, when cultures and societies survive corporate victimiza-
tion, they too may actually grow stronger.
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 51

Community integration is a fourth function of white-collar crime. In particular, groups of individuals

who otherwise would not have become acquainted with one another may come together in their response
to white-collar crime. When there is a crime outbreak in a neighborhood, those neighbors come together to
share their experiences and make their neighborhood stronger (Martin et al., 2009). A crime outbreak in a
business could have the same result. Coworkers who never talked with one another might suddenly become
lunch buddies simply because they want to get together to talk about the crimes that occurred in their
workplace. As well, at the societal level, new groups have been formed to prevent and respond to white-
collar crime.
Consider the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C). Formed in 1992, the center includes
professionals, academics, and researchers interested in addressing white-collar crime on different lev-
els. The NW3C’s mission is: “to provide training, investigative support, and research to agencies and
entities involved in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of economic and high tech crime”
(National White Collar Crime Center, 2009). Without the problem of white-collar crime, this center
would never have been created and its members would never have been brought together (or integrated
as a community).
Other possible positive consequences of white-collar crime can be cited. For example, some crimi-
nologists have noted that occasional forms of deviance might be enjoyable or pleasurable to commit. The
2010 Conan O’Brien/Jay Leno debacle comes to mind. It was announced in January 2010 that O’Brien was
to be replaced by Leno after he had been promised a long-term contract to host The Tonight Show. In the
last several episodes of his NBC show, O’Brien spent much of his show trashing his bosses at NBC. He even
had skits suggesting that he was blowing NBC’s money
on pointless props for his show. The studio and home
audiences raved about these skits. Who wouldn’t want
to go on national television every now and then and
blow their company’s money while trashing their
bosses? (For the record, the thought never entered my
mind.) In a similar way, some cases of workplace devi-
ance might have the positive benefit of making the
worker a more satisfied worker (see Mars, 1983).
Authors have talked about “the joy of violence” (Kerbs
& Jolley, 2007). In some ways, there might also be “the
joy of white-collar deviance.”
For some students, the numerous careers available
to respond to white-collar crime might also be seen as a
positive. Whenever I teach my criminal justice classes, I
always ask my students if they would make crime go
away if they could. Seldom do any students indicate that ▲ Photo 2.3   After his dispute with NBC, Conan O’Brien
they would make crime disappear. In their minds, if mocked his employer, joking about ways he could waste the
they made crime disappear, they’d have to change their company’s money.
majors! So, in some ways, white-collar crime helps keep
some criminal justice officials employed. A few of these careers can be particularly lucrative—one defense
attorney was recently paid $50,000 simply for providing counsel to a white-collar worker who had to testify
in a grand jury proceeding (Nelson, 2010).
52 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

Of course, this brief overview of the “functions of white-collar crime” should not be interpreted as
an endorsement of white-collar criminal behavior. In fact, the seriousness of many white-collar crimes
means that the offenses cannot be taken lightly. The question that arises is whether members of the
public view the offenses seriously.

yy Public Attitudes About White-Collar Crime

A large body of criminological research has focused on public attitudes about crime and different crime
policies. Unfortunately, of the hundreds of criminological studies focusing on attitudes about crime, only a
handful have focused on what the public thinks about white-collar crime. Yet research on white-collar crime
attitudes is important for empirical, cultural, and policy-driven reasons (Piquero, Carmichael, & Piquero,
2008). In terms of empirical reasons, because so few studies have considered what the public thinks about
white-collar crime, research on this topic will shed some light on how members of the public actually per-
ceive this offense type. As well, such research will provide interesting, and important, insight into a particu-
lar culture or subculture. Perhaps most important, such research provides policy makers information they
can use to implement prevention, response, and sentencing strategies.
In one of the first studies on public attitudes about white-collar crime, Cullen and his colleagues
(Cullen, Clark, Mathers, & Cullen, 1983) surveyed a sample of 240 adults and assessed various perceptions
about this behavior. The researchers found that the sample (1) supported criminal sanctions for white-
collar offenders, (2) viewed white-collar crimes as having greater moral and economic costs than street
crimes, and (3) did not define the offenses as violent. They also found that perceptions of seriousness of
white-collar crime increased more than any other offense type in the 1970s and that physically harmful
offenses were viewed as the most serious forms of white-collar crime.
Other studies have shown similar results. A study of 268 students found that perceptions of the serious-
ness of white-collar crime have increased over time and that these perceptions were tied to wrongfulness and
harmfulness (Rosenmerkel, 2001). The NW3C National Victimization Survey also included items assessing
perceptions of seriousness. The researchers found that the sample of 1,605 adults viewed (1) white-collar crime
as serious as conventional crime, (2) physically harmful white-collar offenses as more serious than other white-
collar crimes, (3) organizational offenses as more serious than individual offenses, and (4) offenses by higher
status offenders as more serious than offenses by lower status offenders (Kane & Wall, 2006).
More recent research has built on these findings. A telephone survey of 402 residents of the United
States focused on perceptions about white-collar crime and the punishment of white-collar offenders
(Holtfreter, Van Slyke, Bratton, & Gertz, 2008). The authors found that one third of the respondents said that
white-collar offenders should be punished more severely than street criminals. They also found that two
thirds of the respondents believed that the government should “devote equal or more resources towards
white-collar crime control” (p. 56).
Around the same time, telephone interviews with 1,169 respondents found that the majority of respon-
dents defined white-collar crime as equally serious as, if not more serious than, street crime (Piquero,
Carmichael, & Piquero, 2008). They also found that the presence of a college education impacted percep-
tions of seriousness. Those with a college education were more likely to define street crime and white-collar
crime as equally serious. Another study using the same dataset found that respondents believed that street
criminals were more likely than white-collar offenders to be caught and to receive stiffer sentences
(Schoepfer, Carmichael, & Piquero, 2007). Respondents also believed that robbery and fraud should be
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 53

treated similarly. Another way to suggest this is that the respondents believed that robbers and occupational
offenders committing fraud should be handled the same way. In addressing this point, it is important to call
attention to similarities and differences between conventional criminals and white-collar criminals.

yy Characteristics of White-Collar Offenders

Because white-collar offenses are viewed as equally serious as street crimes, there may be a tendency among
some to view white-collar criminals as similar to street criminals (Payne, 2003b). Such an assumption,
however, is misguided and represents an inaccurate portrait of “the white-collar criminal.” As well, focusing
narrowly on white-collar offenders may result in individuals failing to recognize the interactions between
the offenders’ background characteristics and their offensive behavior (Wheeler et al., 1988).
Criminologists have devoted significant attention to describing the characteristics of various types of
white-collar offenders. Comparing records of street offenders and white-collar offenders, Benson and Moore
(1992) concluded: “Those who commit even run-of-the-mill garden variety white-collar offenses can, as a
group, be clearly distinguished from those who commit ordinary street offenses” (p. 252). In one of the most
comprehensive white-collar crime studies, Wheeler and his colleagues (1988) found that white-collar
offenders were more likely than conventional offenders to (1) have a college education, (2) be white males,
(3) be older, (4) have a job, (5) commit fewer offenses, (6) start their criminal careers later in life, and (7) be
Jewish. Focusing on the interactions between offender characteristics and offense characteristics, the same
research demonstrated that white-collar crime was more likely than street crime to:

•• Be national or international in scope

•• Involve a large number of victims
•• Have organizations as victims
•• Follow demonstrated patterns
•• Be committed for more than a year
•• Be committed in groups

Recognizing the differences between white-collar crime/white-collar offenders and street crimes/street
offenders is significant for theoretical and policy reasons. In terms of theory, as will be demonstrated later
in this text, if one of the criminological theories can explain both types of crimes, then that theory would
be seen as having strong explanatory power. In terms of policy, it is important to recognize that different
criminal justice strategies may be needed for the two types of offenses and that street offenders and white-
collar offenders may respond differently to the criminal justice process.
Consider efforts to prevent crime. Strategies to prevent street crimes might focus on community build-
ing and poverty reduction; preventing white-collar crime is much “more complex” (Johnstone, 1999, p. 116).
The impact of convictions and incarceration is also different between street offenders and white-collar
offenders (Payne, 2003b). While such events may actually allow street offenders to gain “peer group status,”
the white-collar offender would not experience the same increase in status as the result of a conviction
(Johnstone, 1999; Payne, 2003b). At the most basic level, recognizing the differences between street offend-
ers and white-collar offenders helps to promote more useful prevention and intervention strategies. On a
more complex level, recognizing these differences fosters a more objective and accurate understanding
about the dynamics, causes, and consequences of the two types of behavior.
54 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME: A TEXT/READER

yy Summary
•• Sutherland (1949) defined white-collar crime as “crime committed by a person of respectability and high
social status in the course of his occupation.”
•• Criticism of the concept centered around (1) conceptual ambiguity, (2) empirical ambiguity, (3) meth-
odological ambiguity, (4) legal ambiguity, and (5) policy ambiguity.
•• Corporate crime and occupational crime are viewed as “the two principal or ‘pure’ forms of white-collar
crime” (Friedrichs, 2002, p. 245).
•• Criminologists and social scientists offer various ways to define white-collar crime. These variations
tend to overlap with one another and include the following: (1) white-collar crime as moral or ethical
violations, (2) white-collar crime as social harm, (3) white-collar crime as violations of criminal law,
(4) white-collar crime as violations of civil law, (5) white-collar crime as violations of regulatory laws,
(6) white-collar crime as workplace deviance, (7) white-collar crime as definitions socially constructed
by businesses, (8) white-collar crime as research definitions, (9) white-collar crime as official govern-
ment definitions, (10) white-collar crime as violations of trust, (11) white-collar crime as occupational
crimes, and (12) white-collar crime as violations occurring in occupational systems.
•• Determining the extent of white-collar crime is no simple task. Two factors make it particularly dif-
ficult to accurately determine how often white-collar crimes occur: unreported crimes and conceptual
ambiguity.
•• With regard to official statistics and white-collar crime, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and
National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) provide at least a starting point from which we can
begin to question how often certain forms of white-collar crime occur.
•• The consequences of white-collar crime can be characterized as (1) individual economic losses,
(2) societal economic losses, (3) emotional consequences, (4) physical harm, and (5) “positive”
consequences.
•• Research on white-collar crime attitudes is important for empirical, cultural, and policy-driven reasons
(Piquero, Carmichael, & Piquero, 2008).
•• Because white-collar offenses are viewed as equally serious as street crimes, there may be a tendency
among some to view white-collar criminals as similar to street criminals (Payne, 2003b). Such an assump-
tion is misguided and represents an inaccurate portrait of “the white-collar criminal.”
•• Wheeler and his colleagues (1988) found that white-collar offenders were more likely than conventional
offenders to (1) have a college education, (2) be white males, (3) be older, (4) have a job, (5) commit fewer
offenses, (6) start their criminal careers later in life, and (7) be Jewish.

KEY TERMS

Boundary maintenance Definitions socially constructed Individual economic losses

by businesses
Community integration Natural law
Conceptual ambiguity Emotional consequences Occupational crime
Corporate crime Empirical ambiguity Physical harm
Criminaloid concept Government definitions Research definitions
 Section II    Understanding White-Collar Crime 55

Social change Violations-of-occupation crimes Warning light syndrome

Social harm Violations of criminal law White-collar crime
Societal economic losses Violations of regulatory law Workplace deviance
Victimization surveys Violations of trust

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Review the five white-collar crimes described in the beginning of this chapter. Answer the following questions
for each offense description:
a. Is it a white-collar crime?
b. How often do these crimes occur?
c. What would the consequences of this crime be?
d. How serious do you think this crime is?
e. Who is the offender in each case?
f. How does that offender vary from street offenders?
2. Why does it matter how we define white-collar crime?
3. How serious is white-collar crime in comparison to street crimes?
4. What are the negative and positive consequences of white-collar crime?

WEB RESOURCES

FBI White-Collar Crime: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/whitecollarcrime

10 Biggest White-Collar Crimes in History: http://www.businesspundit.com/white-collar-crimes-history-and-how-
they-were-unravelled/
Protect yourself online: http://stlouis.jobing.com/protectagainstfraud.asp
56 SECTION II   UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

READING
Edelhertz, a legal scholar, provides a different look at the concept of white-collar crime. He calls for a more
specific way to define the phenomenon so that it will have utility to both practitioners and academics alike.
Edelhertz suggests that the conceptual ambiguity surrounding the concept made officials from different areas
define the concept within their own domains. Part of the conceptual confusion, he notes, relates to the fact that
it is not always clear how white-collar crimes (and criminals) should be processed in the justice system.
Edelhertz summarizes categories of white-collar crime including personal crimes, abuses of trust, offenders
who deny or rationalize their crimes are legitimate business activities, and crimes that are a central part of the
business activity. Edelhertz also highlights the various kinds of victims of white-collar crime. Edelhertz con-
cludes with strategies to improve the response to these crimes.

White-Collar and Professional Crime

The Challenge for the 1980s
Herbert Edelhertz

T his article addresses a very broad range of anti- classes; law enforcement and regulatory agencies were
social behavior that, literally, cries out for a new already active in the field. Before the turn of the cen-
and descriptive title that conveys some sense of tury, the federal mail fraud statute was already a key
who does what and to whom. The term “white-collar part of an extensive law enforcement arsenal against
crime” is totally inadequate for this purpose, as is the business fraud; powerful legislative weapons against
descriptor “economic crime” that is increasingly used financial frauds had been deployed in the early 1930s
in the United States and is the prevailing term abroad. with the passage of the first federal securities act, and
The very word “crime” is out of place here because we bankers and government officials had been prosecuted
are dealing with behaviors and activities that, spec- for abuses of trust. Even a president of the New York
trum-like, merge imperceptibly into one another, with Stock Exchange had been convicted before Sutherland
the legitimate and laudable on one end and the dishon- focused a spotlight on white-collar crime. He did, how-
est and disreputable on the other. ever, place white-collar crime on the agenda of
Sutherland (1940) coined the term “white-collar” American criminologists. It has been a part of that
relatively recently, only a little more than forty years agenda these past forty years, though relatively dor-
ago. Already distinguished for his contributions in the mant until this past decade.
field of criminology, he turned with populist gusto to Sutherland’s perspective, whatever its merits, was
upper-class crime, particularly in the business sector responsible for a barrier between academic, or research
(Geis and Edelhertz, 1973). Sutherland was not the one investigators, and practitioners, or legislators in the
to discover the crimes of business and the upper field. He defined white-collar crime as “an illegal act

SOURCE: Edelhertz, Herbert. (1983). White-Collar and Professional Crime: The Challenge for the 1980s. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(1), 109–128.
Copyright © SAGE, Inc.
 Reading 2   White-Collar and Professional Crime 57

committed in the course of one’s business or profes- issues (Shagiro, 1980; Saxon, 1980), the impact of
sion,” thus focusing attention on who the offender was white-collar crime (Schrager and Short, 1978; Meier
and where the offense was committed, rather than on and Short, 1981), and a host of other issues.1 There have
the nature of the antisocial behavior that we are con- been numerous symposia held and journal articles
cerned with. Such a perspective made it difficult for the published dealing with operational issues, measure-
researcher to meet on common ground with the practi- ment, and evaluation.
tioner. No prosecutor could accept, as a basis for a Finally, in explaining the burst of public and
criminal charge, that embezzlement by a bank presi- research interest in white-collar crime in the latter half
dent was white-collar crime, and that the same act by a of this decade, one must suspect that the Watergate
low-paid bank teller was not. It is fair to speculate that drama was also a major factor in focusing attention on
the long hiatus in research in white-collar crime— the problem.
extending from the early 1950s to the early 1970s (there
were of course occasional and isolated studies during
this period)—stemmed in part from this gulf. yy White-Collar Criminal
Criminological research in other areas—juvenile jus- Behavior
tice, delinquency, deterrence, and rehabilitation—
flourished during this same period. The term “white-collar crime” means so many things
Starting in the mid-1970s, there was a new burst of to so many people that it will be rarely “out of fashion”
research activity in the white-collar crime area. This as an attractive area for the attention of parts of the
occurred at the same time that thought was being given public, government, business, and the research or
to the definition of white-collar crime. The new view academic community. Each will, of course, concen-
was that the focus should be on the behavior rather trate on that aspect of this very broad area that par-
than the character of the offender, a view taken by this ticularly concerns it. Thus, many will concentrate, for
writer (Edelhertz, 1970), the American Bar Association ideological or political reasons, on the antisocial
(ABA, 1977), and the U.S. Department of Justice’s behavior of the business community and the wealthy,
Criminal Division (Civiletti, 1978). If there was a link while at the same time finding it quite difficult to give
between these two developments, it probably did not lie serious attention to frauds committed by the poor, to
in any departure from Sutherland’s conceptions by the frauds that exploit institutions that serve the disad-
research community. Rather, it may have stemmed vantaged, or even to the activities of con artists who
from the ability of those outside the research commu- make a business of fraud.
nity to perceive the potential of the social sciences to The business community lines up its concerns
contribute to law enforcement agency and other gov- with its economic interests. Those who extend credit
ernmental agency goals, because practitioners were cry out for attention to bankruptcy frauds or to those
able to identify with these new definitional approaches. who deliberately misuse credit cards; telephone com-
A broad range of studies were launched in the white- panies are concerned with those who use technical
collar crime area that included extensive examinations devices to make long distance calls without leaving
of corporate crime (Clinard et al., 1979), fraud against footprints that are necessary for billing; and electric
government programs (Lange, 1979), prosecutive poli- utilities seek the prosecution of those who divert power
cies (Edelhertz and Hoff, 1980), organized crime by tapping wires before electricity gets to the user’s
(Blakely and Gettings, 1980), operation of prosecutive meter. Merchants concerned with the thefts of mer-
units (Blakely et al., 1978), federal data sources reflect- chandise have come to the startling conclusion that this
ing white-collar criminal activity (Reiss and Biderman, is a form of white-collar crime, or at least they did when
1980), relationships between federal, state, and local white-collar crime enforcement appeared to be a more
efforts (Edelhertz and Rogovin, 1980), definitional popular enforcement vehicle than it is now (Chamber
58 SECTION II   UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

of Commerce, 1974). The business community has a difficult to know whether or not there is a prosecut-
more difficult time, however, placing antitrust or price- able case, even when we have persuasive and uncon-
fixing violations under the same umbrella. trovertible evidence as to who did what and how it
Government is not a monolith, but rather a con- was done. The wild card here is that most white-collar
glomeration of interests, each of which competes with crimes involve wrongful behaviors in what appear to
others. It speaks with many voices and its allocation of be thoroughly legitimate contexts. For example, it is
enforcement resources also responds to political and legitimate to sell stocks, but not to deliberately mis-
economic interests. At one time, or in one place, the represent what is being sold. It is legitimate for a sci-
stress will be on curbing abusive or deceptive behavior entist to use grant money for a trip to a professional
by the business community. At another time, the meeting, but certainly more questionable for two sci-
emphasis will be on seeking out and acting on frauds entists to use that money for a Caribbean cruise with
against government programs and frauds against enti- their secretaries to discuss their work. If you are
tlement programs—all of which add to the costs of mugged, the intent of the mugger can rather clearly be
government. At all times, there is an ambivalence as to inferred from his behavior. But if competing contrac-
the issue of tax fraud because every segment of our tors’ bids for public road construction work just hap-
society has some stake in the weakness of the tax col- pen to fall into a pattern that results in their sharing
lection function. available contracts by alternative successful bids, can
This brief mention of divergent views of white- we make a parallel inference that the coincidence of
collar crime only scratches the surface. Even where bids demonstrates intent to unlawfully collude in the
there is some consensus as to what general behavior same way as the mugger’s act evidences his intent?
constitutes white-collar crime, there is not likely to be Certainly we would need much more than this in
agreement on what is to be done in individual cases. order to make a case (Maltz and Pollock, 1980).
For example, it is unlawful to use fraud and deception We make a mistake if we think that victims can
in offering to sell stock, bonds, or other securities. Yet be relied on to report these crimes, even if they know
one part of the same statute that proscribes this behav- they have been defrauded. Offenders are far more
ior and makes it punishable as a felony, also provides likely to escape prosecution, if only because their
alternative remedies and gives the U.S. Securities and behavior is less likely to be reported. Top corporate
Exchange Commission the power to refer for criminal management may hesitate to report the white-collar
prosecution or to refrain from doing so. What “crime” crimes of middle- or high-level management for fear
is, therefore, depends on whether the cognizant agency that this will hurt the corporate image. Top manage-
chooses to see it as crime, which in turn will depend on ment often fears that its own position will be jeopari-
the quantum of available proof and also on how the dized because it failed to prevent or detect earlier
agency balances its many, often conflicting enforce- such crimes, or because it will be subject to financial
ment objectives (Steir, 1981). liability if stockholders sue them for negligence on
What is being suggested here is that in the area of behalf of their corporations. Corporate offenders are
white-collar crime, there is more of a gap between also members of “old boy” networks; one does not call
legal proscriptions and enforcement than in other for the arrest of a bridge partner whose wife shops
areas of the criminal law. Murder and theft are viola- with yours. Finally, some such offenders are valued
tions of criminal law. When such crimes are commit- executives with real track records for producing high
ted, and we know how and by whom, we expect to see profits; one motion picture production company
a prosecution though we recognize that juries may resisted firing its chief executive even after he admit-
acquit or lesser charges may be traded for guilty pleas ted stealing from his own company. On a lower, more
in order to ease burdens on the criminal justice sys- personal level, one elderly victim was most concerned
tem. But in the white-collar crime area, it is often about possible harm to the dance studio instructor
 Reading 2   White-Collar and Professional Crime 59

who had exploited her loneliness to take many thou- control and manipulation of paper or computer records,
sands of dollars from her. to temporarily or permanently bury evidence of crime.
The third category is, in many ways, the most
troublesome of white-collar behaviors since it involves
Categories of White-Collar Crime
offenders who rarely think of themselves as criminals or
There are a number of lenses through which we can abusers of society. These offenders usually have very
observe white-collar criminality. We can examine these real status in their communities. Theirs are crimes inci-
behaviors in terms of motivations, victims, or the dental to and in furtherance of organizational opera-
schemes that are employed. For the purposes of this tions, but crimes that are not the central purpose of the
paper, it may be helpful first to consider the objectives organization. Typical examples would be: antitrust vio-
of white-collar offenders and to simultaneously con- lations; collusive bidding for public contracts; violations
sider classes of victims and the schemes that are used of the federal Corrupt Practices Act to assemble a pool
against them. of monies to influence the political process to support a
This writer has previously suggested a four-part business interest or create or save a tax loophole; or
typology of white-collar schemes that may serve to bribing a contracting officer domestically or abroad to
illustrate the range of criminal purposes in this crime contract for goods or services. On a smaller scale, such
area (Edelhertz, 1970). These four parts are not neces- violations may involve fraudulent medicare or medicaid
sarily mutually exclusive; many schemes will fall into claims, the thumb on the butcher’s scale, or the submis-
more than one category, and may even involve com- sion of a misleading financial statement to obtain more
mon crimes. credit for a business than it would otherwise be entitled
The first category is that of personal, or ad hoc to. There have been cases involving government defense
crimes. The offender here is pursuing some individual contracts (and I am sure in many a research grant area)
objective and usually has no face-to-face relationship where funds from one contract or grant are used to sup-
with the victim. Examples would be personal income port another effort that is in trouble. These crimes or
tax violations, frauds against government entitlement abuses are difficult to deal with because they are sub-
programs, and credit card frauds. The motives here are merged in a mass of legitimate activities. They are both
usually simple greed, or very serious real or perceived well hidden and extensively rationalized.
need. Schemes are facilitated and prevention or detec- The final category is white-collar crime as a busi-
tion hampered by the fact that the offender is usually ness, or as the central activity of a venture. Here we are
part of a sea of anonymous faces dealt with by govern- talking about the con man and the con game. It is the
ment and corporate victims. easiest one to visualize because we are dealing with the
The second category involves abuses of trust. business of cheating. There is no way to put a nice face
Criminal or abusive behavior falling in this category on, or find any justification for the swindler who is in
usually involves an offender who has been given cus- business only to get something for nothing. For these
tody of the assets of another, or power to make deci- swindlers, the provision of goods, services, or property
sions that bind another. Embezzlements by employees is only an excuse to grasp monies that bear no recog-
or fiduciaries, accepting bribes or other favors to grant nizable relationship to what is provided. Sometimes the
contracts on behalf of one’s government or business scheme may be close to picking a victim’s pocket, as in
employer, misuse of an employer’s property or infor- the case of the street “pigeon drop” that victimizes any
mation for private profit, misuse of labor union pen- vulnerable passerby. At other times the scheme will
sion funds, creating “ghosts” on payrolls or fictitious involve sale of worthless desert land or investment
accounts payable—all of these are typical examples securities at high prices, based on fraudulent descrip-
in this category. Here the offender has power to cause tions. These schemes can victimize a business and
harm by virtue of his or her position and, through government, as well as individuals. The IRS pays out
60 SECTION II   UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

millions every year to schemers who claim many Crimes against individuals fall into five broad
refunds under phony names and who submit fabri- groups. These are (1) street con games such as the
cated W-2 forms to support these claims. Businesses “pigeon drop,” (2) consumer frauds that include per-
lose many millions of dollars by selling on credit to sonal improvement schemes involving work-at-home
bankruptcy fraud artists who buy or set up a business, schemes, trade schools, vanity publishing, modeling
establish credit, then resell the merchandise and pocket schools, and the marketing of inventions, (3) charity
the proceeds while leaving business creditors with an and religious frauds, (4) investment frauds, and
empty, bankrupt shell. Simply because these swindlers (5) fiduciary frauds, such as thefts from estates or
are the easiest to understand they receive dispropor- attorneys’ embezzlements of escrow funds. Some
tionate public, and perhaps law enforcement, attention, crimes against business will have very direct impact on
and are even romanticized in films such as The Sting individuals, for example where an uninsured financial
and The Producers. institution is looted, wiping out the savings of many
(often small) investors.
Crimes against business fall into seven very general
Victims, Schemes, and Harm
groups. These are (1) internal thefts through embezzle-
It is helpful to consider what kinds of schemes are ments and misapplications, (2) commercial bribery
directed against different categories of victims. There (that may well be the major desert area of detection and
is little reliable data here, but reasoning and experi- enforcement), (3) conflicts of interest and exploitation
ence in the area can take us at least some distance. of inside information for personal gain, (4) external
Developing a structure for consideration of the swindles, such as advance fee schemes, bankruptcy
scheme-victim-harm relationship can be a starting frauds, and use of phony security or false financial
point for policy analysis, action priority development, statements as a basis for loans or credit, (5) false entitle-
and marshalling the tools of social sciences for valu- ment claims, such as internal expense accounts, external
able and helpful research on white-color crime. As a fraudulent insurance claims, or billing for goods or ser-
starting point, it would appear that white-collar vices not supplied, (6) business investment fraud, such
assaults are mounted against three general categories as mergers or business purchases induced by false
of victims: (1) individuals; (2) businesses and non- financial statements, and (7) unlawful competition due
government institutions; and (3) government as buyer, to market domination by competitors. Though the
giver, and protector-gatekeeper. examples offered relate to businesses, other private
In considering these categories, one should also institutions are similarly vulnerable. Universities have
keep in mind the relationships of victims to the suffered from embezzlements, and admissions to at
offender(s). There are at least three such relationships, least one medical school were sold.
which we can call “assault categories.” There are exter- The list of white-collar crimes that have been com-
nal assaults, which are externally conceived and exe- mitted against government and government functions
cuted with no knowing collaboration by the victim or is an exceedingly lengthy one, and very difficult to
the victim organization. Examples would be a fraudu- divide into categories. As a starting point, we can con-
lent claim for a tax refund, or the sale of worthless stock sider the following: (1) frauds arising out of procure-
to an investor. There are internal assaults, that involve ment of goods and services, such as collusive bidding,
no knowing collaborators outside a victimized organi- billing for “phantom” goods or services, commingling
zation. Embezzlement would be the classic example. of contract costs, and commercial bribery; (2) program
Finally, there are mixed assaults which involve inside- frauds that involve false entitlement claims, fraudulent
outside collaboration. The classic example would be exploitation of public programs to promote housing,
commercial bribery in which an outside organization agriculture, small business development, and foreign
bribes the trusted employee of the victim organization aid; and (3) frauds against the revenue. In addition
to grant a contract. there is a broad range of white-collar violations against
 Reading 2   White-Collar and Professional Crime 61

government as gatekeeper or protector of the public. In a few instances—in such places as the policy
Examples in the gatekeeper-protector area would be analysis branch of the Criminal Division of the U.S.
fraudulent abuse of the zoning function, fraudulent Department of Justice, the New Jersey Division of
information supplied to regulators to obtain permis- Criminal Justice (Stein, 1981), and the Arizona
sion to establish a bank or insurance company or to sell Attorney General’s Office (Edelhertz et al., 1981)—
securities, unlicensed export of arms, soliciting for there has been systematic consideration of strategies
charities in violation of state registration laws, environ- to deal with white-collar and organized crime that take
mental offenses, fraudulent immigration applications, into account the complex issues of enforcement tools,
and fraudulent test result submissions to get permis- remedies, and criminal behaviors to be contained. Law
sion to market a prescription drug. enforcement agencies must adjust their planning to
exploit the total arsenal of weapons available to them,
yy Conclusion particularly in the area of civil prosecution that has
been made more promising by the enactment of rela-
White-collar crimes and related abuses are not adver- tively new federal and state anti-racketeering statutes
saries that can be targeted, met, attacked, and defeated (Blakely and Gettings, 1980). Professions such as law
once and for all. They are, rather, forms of group behav- and accounting will have to reconsider their reluctance
ior that can be expected to surface again and again in to assume any responsibility for containment of white-
response to new opportunities, or to avoid the loss of collar crime, or to report such crimes. Such a reconsid-
money, property, markets, or personal advantages. eration may be encouraged by successful criminal
Since total victory and perpetual safety are not attain- prosecutions and massive civil judgments against
able, society’s general objective in this area should be to major public accounting firms.2
marshal and deploy its public and private administra- In reacting to white-collar crime challenges, we
tive, research, and law enforcement resources to contain will have to distinguish more carefully between socio-
white-collar crime, that is, to deter, detect, investigate, logical and economic impacts. Doing so should help to
and prosecute (criminally and civilly) these crimes and set enforcement priorities and allocate resources. For
related abuses. example, welfare frauds may be insignificant in eco-
Many resources exist that have not been fully nomic terms as compared to antitrust violations, but
brought to bear on this area. In the academic com- welfare programs are most vulnerable to attack when-
munity, schools of business have totally ignored the ever frauds are exposed. Conversely, swindles and con
problem of white-collar crime; law schools, with rare games may bulk large in terms of public conscious-
exceptions, treat the problem as a very minor part of ness and individual victim injuries, but the economic
courses in criminal law and regulatory law; social scien- injury to the body politic caused by the hemorrhaging
tists have noted the problems in this field but have not costs of procurement fraud and abuses could suggest
yet developed methods to gather, organize, and describe greater emphasis and use of enforcement resources in
white-collar criminal behavior or measure the effective- the latter area.
ness of remedies (all of which may not be achievable). Finally, all those concerned with white-collar
Only in the area of policy analysis—and there in but a crime and related abuses must consider what contribu-
few instances—has there been a systematic effort to tion they can make to the development of a rational
relate agency organization and functions, and to con- method of marshaling and deploying those contain-
sider the pros and cons of alternative approaches. ment resources that are available (Edelhertz and
Within law enforcement agencies, the stress has been on Rogovin, 1980). These resources are currently divided
day-to-day operations and defense of white-collar crime among numerous federal, state, local, and private agen-
containment resources against competing program- cies that are, in turn, divided by function: police
matic demands, such as the clamor for resources by departments, investigative agencies, compliance offices
those combating violent crimes and common theft. within agencies that procure goods and services or
62 SECTION II   UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

distribute program benefits, regulatory agencies, pros- ________ (1970) The Nature, Impact and Prosecution of White-Collar
Crime, Report No. ICR 70-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
ecutors, and the courts. Groups in private industry Justice, May.
perform many of these same functions. There is no ________and B. HOFF (1980) Report to the National District Attorney
reason to believe that decisions as to which agency Association Economic Crime Project Battelle Memorial Institute,
responds to a white-collar crime challenge are in any Seattle, WA., December.
EDELHERTZ, H. and T. D. OVERCAST [eds.] (1981) White-Collar Crime: An
way related to the resources or other capabilities of that Agenda for Research. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
agency. Rather, who becomes involved is likely to reflect EDELHERTZ, H. and C ROGOVIN (1980) A National Strategy for Containing
which agency moved first, or which has greater clout or White-Collar Crime. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
resources. Agencies have overlapping jurisdictions, and EDELHERTZ, H. et al. (1981) The Containment of Organized Crime: A
Report to the Arizona Legislative Council. Report No, BHARC
there is little to prevent dysfunctional duplication of 300/81/043. Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, Seattle, WA.,
effort or significant matters falling between the cracks. December.
In this high-altitude pass over the world of white- ELLIOTT, R. K. and J. J. WILLINGHAM (1980) Management Fraud: Detection
collar crime, it has been necessary to omit many issues and Deterrence. New York: Petrocelli.
ERMANN, M. D. and R. J. LUNDMAN (1981) “Corporate violations of the
of importance which some would consider more sig- Corrupt Practices Act,” pp. 51-68 in H. Edelhertz and T. Overcast
nificant than those discussed here. To carry the space (eds.) White-Collar Crime: An Agenda for Research. Lexington, MA:
analogy further, however, the major task in the 1980s D. C. Heath.
for those concerned with white-collar crime is to GEIS, G. and E. STOTLAND [eds.] (1980) White-Collar Crime. Sage Criminal
Justice System Annuals, Vol. 13. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
develop high-resolution lenses with which to better GEIS, G. and H. EDELHERTZ (1973) “Criminal law and consumer fraud: a
survey the terrain. sociolegal view.” Amer. Criminal Law Rev. 11 (Summer): 989-1010.
GEIS, G. (1967) “The heavy electrical equipment antitrust cases of 1961,”
pp. 139-150 in M. B. Clinard and R. Quinney (eds.) Criminal Behavior
yy Notes Systems: A Typology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
GROSS, E. (1980) “Organizational Structure and organizational crime,”
1. For a bibliography of the more recent work in the field of pp. 52-76 in G. Geis and E. Scotland (eds.) White-Collar Crime. Beverly
white-collar crime, see Edemertt and Overeast (1981). For exam­ Hills, CA: Sage.
ples of more recent research in the field, see Geis and Stotland LANGE, A. G. (1979) Fraud and Abuse in Government Benefit Programs.
(1980). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, October.
2. There is already considerable concern in the accounting MALTZ, M. D. and S. M. POLLOCK (1980) “Analyzing suspected collusion
profession. See Elliot and Willingham (1980). among bidders,” pp. 174-198 in G. Geis and E. Stotland (eds.) White-
Collar Crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
MEIER, R. F. and J. F. SHORT, JR. (1981) “The consequences of white-collar
yy References crime,” pp. 23-49 in H. Edelhertz and T. D. Overcast (eds.) White-Collar
Crime: An Agenda for Research. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
American Bar Association Commission on Criminal Law (1977) Report, REISS, A. J., Jr. and A. D. BIDERMAN (1980) Data Sources on White-Collar
Committee on Economic Offenses 31. Washington, DC, March. Law-Breaking. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, September.
BLAKEY, C. R. and B. GETTINGS (1980) “Racketeer influenced and corrupt SAXON, M. S. (1980) White-Collar Crime: The Problem and the Federal
organizations (RICO): basic concepts—criminal and civil remedies.” Response. Report No. 80-84 EPW. Washington, DC: Library of Congress,
Temple Law Q. 53: 1009–1048. S3:1009-1048. Congressional Research Service, April 14.
BLAKEY, G. R., R. GOLDSTOCK, and C. H, ROGOVIN (1978) Rackets SCHRAGER, L. S, and J. F. SHORT, Jr. (1978) “Toward a sociology of organi-
Bureaus: Investigation and Prosecution of Organized Crime. zational crime.” Social Problems 25:407-419.
Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Justice, March. SHAPIRO, S. P. (1980) Thinking About White-Collar Crime: Matters of
Chamber of Commerce of the United States (1974) A Handbook of White- Conceptualization and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Collar Crime: Everyone’s Loss. Washington, DC: Author. Justice, December.
CIVILETTI, B. R. (1978) Statement, pp. 64-65 in White-Collar Crime. House STEIR, E. H. (1981) “The interrelationships among remedies for white-collar
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, 95th Congress, criminal behavior,” pp. 153–173 in H. Edelhertz and T. D. Overcast
Second Session. (eds.) White-Collar Crime: An Agenda for Research. Lexington, MA: D.
CLINARD, M. B. et al. (1979) Illegal Corporate Behavior. Washington, DC: C Heath.
U.S. Department of Justice, October. SUTHERLAND, E. H. (1949) White-Collar Crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
EDELHERTZ, H. (1980) “Transnational white-collar crime: a developing Winston.
challenge and need for response.” Temple Law Q. 53:1114-1126. ______(1940) “White-collar criminality.” Amer. Soc Rev. 5:1-12.
 Reading 3   Occupational Crime, Occupational Deviance, and Workplace Crime 63

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Who are the victims of white-collar crime?

2. How does the way Edelhertz defines white-collar crime vary from Sutherland’s approach?
3. Given that Edelhertz wrote this article a quarter of a century ago, how might he change his views about these concepts
given today’s technologically oriented society?

   

READING
David Friedrichs is regarded as one of the top criminologists currently studying white-collar crime. In this
article, Friedrichs directly addresses all of the issues that arise when academics use different concepts to
describe white-collar crime. One major part of his argument is that these new concepts create additional con-
fusion, rather than limit it. He provides a summary of the history of the white-collar crime concept. Friedrichs
then reviews the concepts of occupational crime, occupational deviance, and workplace crime. The occupa-
tional crime concept, Friedrichs argues, distorts what Sutherland meant by “white-collar crime” by including
occupations with less status, power, and wealth. The occupational deviance concept is also viewed as too vague
by Friedrichs, who sees the concept as describing behaviors (like child abuse in day care centers) as outside of
the scope of white-collar crime. In a similar way, Friedrichs argues that many of the behaviors included under
the heading of “workplace crime” are more similar to street crime than white-collar crime.

Occupational Crime, Occupational

Deviance, and Workplace Crime
Sorting Out the Difference
David O. Friedrichs

yy Introduction to resolve the definitional conundrums that arise in

this realm (e.g. Friedrichs, 1992, 1996a, 1996b; Geis,
Perhaps no other area of criminological inquiry has 1992; Helmkamp et al., 1996; Meier, 2001). At least
been more plagued by conceptual confusion than that some of those who write about white collar crime
of white collar crime. Many attempts have been made choose to address the definitional question very

SOURCE: Friedrichs, David O. (2002). Occupational Crime, Occupational Deviance, and Workplace Crime. Criminal Justice, 2(3): 243-256.
64 SECTION II   UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

briefly—if at all—and then move on to other substan- In the present context only two observations need to be
tive issues or empirical research findings. Although a made. First, Sutherland has also been faulted with hav-
certain level of impatience with the definitional and ing contributed to the long history of conceptual confu-
conceptual debates may be understandable, a premise sion in this realm both because he defined white collar
adopted here is that theoretical advancement, mean- crime in somewhat different ways at different points,
ingful analysis of empirical research, and the develop- and because these definitions themselves were intrinsi-
ment of effective policy responses in the realm of white cally problematic; second, Sutherland’s (1949) own
collar crime is only possible if it is grounded in optimal major work on white collar crime focused on the
conceptual clarity (Helmkamp et al., 1996; Gerring, crimes of corporations.
1999). This claim should not be confused with a failure In their influential Criminal Behavior Systems: A
to recognize that consequential disputes about the best Typology, Clinard and Quinney (1973 [1967]: 131),
way to define key terms are inevitable, or that for some building on earlier work by Quinney (1964), discrimi-
purposes intentionally ambiguous definitions are nated between corporate crime and occupational
desirable. On the first point, one can agree with John crime, or ‘violation of the legal codes in the course of
Braithwaite’s observation that ‘It is an enormously valu- activity in a legitimate occupation.’ This typological
able type of scholarship to study the struggle between distinction has been widely accepted, along with the
those with an interest in clarifying and those with an recognition that the term ‘white collar crime’ encom-
interest in muddying the criminal-non-criminal dis- passes an exceptionally broad range of activities that
tinction’ (2001: 23). On the second point, one can agree can only be analyzed and discussed in a coherent man-
with Vilhelm Aubert’s (1952) call for adopting a delib- ner when broken down into types. Indeed, the useful-
erately ambiguous definition of white collar crime ness of typologies within criminology generally is quite
itself. The specific concern here, however, is with established, despite some criticisms of limitations or
explicit or implicit claims that key terms have discrete, distortions inherent in existing criminological typolo-
coherent meaning, when any such claims enhance gies (Gibbons, 1983; Miethe and McCorkle, 2001).
rather than diminish conceptual confusion. Accord- Gilbert Geis, the most respected active white collar
ingly, further engagement with definitional and con- crime scholar over a period of more than four decades,
ceptual issues is called for, however tedious it may seem has long favored a typological approach to white collar
to some. crime (Geis, 1962, 1982, 1992, 2002; Meier, 2001). In my
The present article was inspired by a long-standing own approach to typologies of white collar crime I have
dissatisfaction with Gary Green’s (1997 [1990], 2001) argued for recognition of the term itself as relativistic
solution to the definitional challenge, and more imme- and heuristic (Friedrichs, 1996a). While corporate
diately by a review of several new encyclopedia entries, crime and occupational crime are the two principal, or
on: occupational crime, occupational deviance, and ‘pure,’ forms of white collar crime, I make the case for
workplace crime. recognition of cognate, hybrid, and marginal forms of
white collar crime, including: governmental crime;
state-corporate crime; finance crime; technocrime;
yy A Brief Review of the History enterprise crime; contrepreneurial crime; and avoca-
of the White Collar Crime tional crime (Friedrichs, 1996a). Each of these activi-
and Occupational Crime ties has a fundamental link with the core concept of
Concepts white collar crime. But in the present context I will only
address the conceptual confusion that has arisen in
It is well known that Edwin Sutherland (1940) intro- relation to the invocation of the terms ‘occupational
duced the concept of white collar crime in his 1939 crime’, ‘occupational deviance’, and ‘workplace crime’.
American Sociological Society address in Philadelphia. The concept of occupational deviance—or deviance in
 Reading 3   Occupational Crime, Occupational Deviance, and Workplace Crime 65

an occupational setting—was especially influenced by commission of certain forms of crime it does not nec-
Clifton Bryant’s (1974) reader, Deviant Behavior: essarily follow that this dimension is the most signifi-
Occupational and Organizational Bases. The term cant element of the crime. All truly useful typologies of
‘workplace crime’ seems to derive principally from crime use multiple criteria, and attempt to group
some recent attention to workplace violence (e.g. together activities that most logically belong together
Southerland et al., 1997). On the one hand, occupa- (Gibbons, 1983; Miethe and McCorkle, 2001). I hope to
tional crime, occupational deviance, and workplace demonstrate here that the typological groupings
crime—as invoked today—are often used quite inter- emerging out of Green’s approach are fundamentally
changeably, although I will argue that it makes more flawed, and distorting.
sense to differentiate quite clearly between them. On Green breaks down occupational crime into four
the other hand, although traditional white collar crimes types. The first of these, ‘Organizational Occupational
are frequently encompassed by these terms, many of Crime,’ is essentially the equivalent of corporate crime.
the other activities subsumed within these categories But Green loses more than he gains in this translation,
have nothing to do with white collar crime. This inevi- and not only by virtue of the awkwardness of the term
tably produces great conceptual confusion, and hinders itself. It is the corporate structure, resources, environ-
both empirical and policy-related work. ment, mission, and so on, that are the key elements for
understanding crime in this category—e.g. environ-
yy Occupational Crime mental pollution; unsafe products; unsafe working
conditions; price-fixing; contractual fraud; etc.—not
Gary Green (1997 [1990], 2001) has promoted the case the fact that company executives and managers have
for replacing the term ‘white collar crime’—which he legitimate occupations. It is not so much the occupa-
regards as conceptually incoherent—with his particu- tion as the organization that structures the opportuni-
lar conception of occupational crime. He defines such ties in this realm. Indeed, corporate crime such as
crime as ‘any act punishable by law that is committed environmental pollution typically involves corporate
through opportunity created in the course of an occu- personnel on various different levels for purposes of
pation that is legal’ (Green, 1997 [1990]: 15). The core implementation, from CEOs to lowly workers.
argument here is that it is the structuring of crime Green’s second type, ‘State Authority Occupational
opportunities, as a consequence of having a legitimate Crime,’ is arguably an even more awkward term for
occupation, that most fully and effectively distinguishes what I have chosen to characterize as governmental
what has traditionally been characterized as white col- crime (with state crime and political white collar crime
lar crime from other forms of criminal behavior, and as the major types). This term is applied to abuses and
most especially conventional crime. Gerald Robin illegal applications of state power by those holding
(1974) is credited with first having called for replace- some official position. In relation to this term an
ment of the term ‘white collar crime’ with ‘occupational unusually broad array of activities is encompassed,
crime’. As Green puts it, ‘The concept of occupational ranging from a notary public who takes a bribe to
crime seeks only to identify a general type of opportu- genocide. In my own approach state crime is the public
nity’ (2001: 406). sector equivalent of corporate crime, and political
Certainly opportunity is a highly significant vari- white collar crime is the public sector equivalent of
able in the occurrence of crime, and arguably it has not occupational crime. In the case of genocide, the fact
been adequately emphasized in some criminological that those carrying it out—from the high command to
theories and typologies. But the claim is made here that killing squads or concentration camp guards—may
the opportunity factor can also be overstated in the have ‘legitimate’ occupations in some sense is far less
formulation of viable criminological theories and significant than the role of the apparatus, resources,
typologies. If occupations structure or facilitate the and ideology of the state.
66 SECTION II   UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

Green’s third type is ‘Professional Occupational respects the neighborhood structures the opportunity
Crime,’ the equivalent of crimes of professionals in for such crime. The offenders identified here have far
other typologies. As an example under this heading we more in common with others with tendencies promot-
have unnecessary treatment and fraud by physicians. ing pedophilia than they do with financially oriented
Green characterizes unnecessary surgery as a form of occupational offenders, such as the crooked thrift
aggravated assault uniquely available to physicians. executives, or employees who steal.
Certainly the injury to patients is real, but unnecessary In noting the dissension on the meaning of white
surgery typically differs in a fundamental way from collar crime, Green claims that ‘some scholars include
aggravated assault, insofar as the intent is not to do among white collar crimes those offenses committed in
physical harm but rather to realize a financial gain. the course of occupations that are illegal themselves’
Green also includes sexual assault by physicians, and (2001: 406). Mafioso, contract killers, bookies, burglars,
misappropriation of drugs, under this heading. It and the like might be said to occupy illegal occupations,
makes more sense to recognize that physicians may but I am not aware of white collar crime scholars who
have special opportunities to commit sexual assaults, would label those occupying such positions as white col-
and to shield their actions from prosecution, but that lar offenders. However, it should be recognized that the
such offenders are basically rapists/molesters or drug legality (or legitimacy) of a particular occupation is not
abusers simply utilizing the enhanced opportunity always entirely clear-cut, and occupations could be
they have as physicians, and the dynamic and motiva- ranged along a continuum of legitimacy and legality. For
tion for such offenses is fundamentally at odds with example, real estate agent is a fully legitimate/legal occu-
that of white collar crime, or financially driven crimes pation, con artist is not, but what about a time share
of professionals. entrepreneur who is using high-pressure sales tactics
Green’s fourth and final category is ‘Individual and some forms of misrepresentation? In my book
Occupational Crime,’ which is conceded to be a catch- Trusted Criminals I adopted a term formulated by
all term for all other forms of occupational crime. Francis, ‘contrepreneur,’ to encompass a wide range of
Personal income tax evasion is given as one example of activities (and related occupations) that incorporate in
this type of crime. But one’s personal income tax obli- varying degree elements of both legitimacy and illegiti-
gation is not linked to one’s occupation; rather, it is macy, legality and illegality (Friedrichs, 1996a). A ‘fence’
linked to one’s having income, from whatever source. who deals in stolen goods is obviously engaged in illegal
Accordingly, I characterize it as a form of avocational activity, so fence is not a legitimate occupation, but
crime, parallel to white collar and occupational crime, fences are invariably legitimate businessmen (e.g. pawn-
but in definitional terms outside the boundaries of brokers) who engage in much legitimate and legal activ-
such crime because it does not specifically occur ity along with their illegal and illegitimate activity.
within an occupational context. Accordingly, if we address actual cases, it is not necessar-
Under this heading, as well, Green includes ily accurate to characterize someone as either engaged in
offenses ranging from thrifts fraudsters to nonprofes- a legal or an illegal occupation, as opposed to elements of
sionals molesting children at day care centers. While both. ‘Enterprise crime’ is another term I have used to
the former example certainly fits under the traditional characterize activities involving the intersection of legiti-
heading of white collar crime, the latter clearly does mate businesses with syndicated (organized) crime.
not. Again, as in the case of physicians, while it may be Again, what level of engagement with illegal enterprises
true that day care workers who molest have unusual is required for a businessman to no longer be legitimate?
opportunities to carry out this type of crime, they are Green argues that ‘. . . the concept of occupational
best classified as molesters, not as occupational offend- crime can be equally as useful as “white collar crime” in
ers. We do not characterize conventional crime as seeking an understanding of the ways in which wealth
‘neighborhood crime,’ despite the fact that in many and political powers affect the making of law and their
 Reading 3   Occupational Crime, Occupational Deviance, and Workplace Crime 67

application’ (2001: 406). But many legal occupations benefit of one’s employer or organization. However,
are essentially devoid of real wealth and political power. there are obviously fundamental differences between
White collar crime, in its traditional use, incorporating extramarital relations with a co-worker and whistle-
corporations and the professions, does in fact highlight blowing; the latter activity can be exceptionally selfless,
the disproportionate political clout of organizations for example. It is also important to differentiate between
and occupations in the elite or at least upper middle the workplace norms established by employers (often
class realm. quite formally, in employee manuals) and the norms of
In sum, Green fails to make the case that the ben- co-workers, typically informal but often quite potent.
efits of replacing the concept of white collar crime with ‘Rate-busting,’ or exceeding employer quotas and
occupational crime outweigh the costs. What Green expectations, is likely to be viewed positively by the
gains—the emphasis on how occupations can struc- employer, and may well be rewarded; from the point of
ture criminal opportunities—is more than offset by view of co-workers, however, it is more likely to be
what he loses, through wholly abandoning the impor- viewed negatively. Professionals must also orient them-
tant social class dimension of the traditional concept of selves in relation to the norms of their professional
white collar crime, and by conflating activities that may associations (e.g. the American Medical Association;
occur within a single occupational framework but are the American Bar Association), and such professional
fundamentally different in terms of motivation and association norms may be at odds with the norms and
form. Those who adopt the white collar crime concept expectations of both employers and co-workers.
typically only make heuristic claims for it; Green claims Some of those who write about white collar
a fundamentally analytical coherence for his concept of crime—or at least certain forms of white collar
occupational crime that simply cannot be demon- crime—have opted to use the term ‘deviance’, instead
strated. The Clinard and Quinney conception of occu- of ‘crime’ (e.g. Douglas and Johnson, 1977; Ermann and
pational crime as a subtype of a broader category of Lundman, 1996; Simon, 1999). But the application of
white collar crime remains more valid, in this view. deviance in the realm of white collar generates several
fundamental problems. First, ‘deviance’ as a term is
yy Occupational Deviance powerfully associated with those who are fundamen-
tally (and sometimes visibly) different from mainstream
The term ‘occupational deviance’ has also been invoked. members of society—e.g. prostitutes; homosexuals;
Nathan W. Pino (2001: 260) defines it as ‘any self-serv- drug addicts; the mentally ill; and so on. One of the
ing deviant act that occurs during the course of one’s striking dimensions of white collar crime (and occupa-
occupation,’ broken down into deviant occupational tional crime) is that the offenders are typically quite
behaviors (e.g. extramarital relations with a co-worker; fully integrated into the mainstream of society, and are
consuming alcohol in the workplace; whistle-blowing) widely so perceived. Second, for certain significant
and occupational crime (e.g. embezzlement; sexual forms of white collar crime offenders are in fact con-
harassment; accepting kickbacks). Pino cites Clifton D. forming to prevailing organizational or occupational
Bryant’s (1974) reader Deviant Behavior as one basic norms, rather than deviating. Of course many tradi-
source of inspiration for this conception. Readings in tional forms of deviance are characterized by peer
this volume addressed such matters as work-norm group conformity—e.g. gang members—but in the
violations in the factory, drug addiction among physi- case of white collar crime or occupational crime the
cians, lesbian behavior among strippers, fortunetelling, deviance from mainstream norms may be more ambig-
and abortion clinic ethnography, as well as some forms uous, or less clear-cut. Finally, any invocation of the
of white collar crime. Deviant occupational behavior is term ‘deviance’ in this context has to clarify whether
characterized as activity undertaken for one’s own deviance from formal or informal societal norms, from
gain, or to cope with workplace stress, and not for the formal or informal organizational norms, from formal
68 SECTION II   UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

or informal professional peer association norms, or defined here, incorporates violations of society’s laws
from informal norms of workgroup peers, is involved. and regulations (e.g. fraud and embezzlement); violation
In discussing occupational crime (as a subtype of of the norms of professional associations (e.g. ambu-
occupational deviance), Pino (2001) basically adopts lance chasing); violations of the rules or norms of
Green’s approach, and accordingly includes such phe- employers (e.g. misappropriating trade secrets); and
nomena as child molesting in a day care center, along violations of coworkers’ norms (e.g. rate-busting). All of
with embezzlement and accepting kickbacks, but this tends to contribute to and enhance conceptual con-
expands on Green to include workplace violence. fusion. In my view it would make more sense to restrict
Occupational crime, then, has been conceived of as the term ‘occupational deviance’ to non-criminal viola-
financially driven crimes committed by middle and tions of norms within a legitimate occupational setting,
upper class individuals within the context of their with differentiation between violations of the norms of
legitimate occupation; financially driven crimes com- the employer, of professional or occupational associa-
mitted within the context of any legitimate occupation, tions, and of co-workers. See Table 2.5.
regardless of socioeconomic status; financial and non-
financial forms of crime and deviance committed yy Workplace Crime
within the context of any legitimate occupation; and
conventional criminal behavior committed in the set- Finally, we have the concept of ‘workplace crime,’
ting of the workplace. Occupational crime can range defined as ‘any harmful act committed by a person or
from that which conforms to widely held norms within group of persons during the course of a legitimate
the occupation (e.g. taking kickbacks; favoring some occupation’ (Ismaili, 2001: 530). It is taken to be harm
suppliers; tax evasion) to that which is wholly at odds specifically generated by the workplace, and accord-
with occupational norms (e.g. sexual molestation; vio- ingly is broken down into: occupational crime; corpo-
lence against co-workers). Occupational crime, as rate (organizational) crime; and workplace violence.

Table 2.5   Comparing Forms of White Collar and Conventional Crime

White Collar Crime Conventional Crime

Corporate/Occ. (C&Q) Organ. Occ. (Green) Occupational (Green) Conventional

HMO defrauds Medicaid MD defrauds Medicaid MD steals patient’s wallet Pickpocket steals
stranger’s wallet

Pharmaceutical corporation Surgeon performs MD molests patient Uncle molests niece

sells dangerous product (e.g. unnecessary surgery
Dalkon shield)

Corporation defrauds Employee steals from Maid steals from guest Burglar steals from
consumers employer homeowner

NOTES: Examples in the two columns to the left would be uniformly defined as white collar crime, either in Clinard and Quinney’s (C & Q) typology of
Corporate Crime and Occupational Crime, or Green’s Typology of Organizational Occupational Crime and Individual Occupational Crime. Examples in the
right-hand column would be uniformly defined as forms of conventional crime. In the remaining column we have examples of illegal acts that could be
regarded as fitting Green’s conception of occupational crime. The question here is this: do they have a closer generic relation to white collar crime or to con-
ventional crime? I would argue, with the latter.
 Reading 3   Occupational Crime, Occupational Deviance, and Workplace Crime 69

In my view, however, the concept so defined simply earthquakes. This concept might also include sexual
confuses our understanding of the range of illegalities exploitation of subordinates by a public official.
that can occur in the context of the workplace. As an But if we are informed that some two million
‘umbrella’ term for a range of different offenses it is Americans are victims of violence at the workplace—
quite inferior to the white collar crime concept, which including homicides, assaults, rapes, and robberies—
at a minimum offers a fundamental contrast to con- how shall we treat this information in relation to the
ventional crime. By analogy, it would not seem to be broader concept of workplace violence? First, on homi-
either theoretically or conceptually useful to put forth cide, such statistics may include crimes committed by
a concept of ‘home-based crime.’ The home can be the aggrieved, disgruntled, and dismissed employees, and
locus of a broad range of illegalities that have nothing crimes that arise out of the intrinsic dangers of the
important in common: burglaries; domestic violence; workplace—e.g. a prison inmate murdering a guard—
and even some forms of occupational crime—e.g. but also may incorporate victims of violence in the
investment fraud—in an era when growing numbers workplace for reasons wholly independent of the work
are working out of their homes. It is one thing to say setting itself (e.g. homicides committed by estranged
that an organizational structure (e.g. an asbestos- husbands and jilted boyfriends), and by conventional
producing corporation) can generate a particular offenders who have invaded the workplace for specifi-
form of crime, or a specific occupation (e.g. medi- cally criminal purposes. Assaults and rapes occur in
cine) can generate a particular form of crime. How- the workplace, but it seems useful to discriminate
ever, the workplace per se is merely a setting, and has between sexual exploitation of a subordinate by a
much less to offer toward an understanding of how supervising manager (through direct or indirect
specific forms of crime are generated. Quite different threats relating to employment status, promotion, and
forms of violence are linked with the workplace: e.g. salary bonuses), an employee taking advantage of spe-
the violence of unsafe working conditions; the vio- cial access in the workplace (e.g. a janitor raping a
lence of unnecessary surgery; the violence of homi- doctor, or vice versa), and an assault by an outsider
cide by a disgruntled worker, or sexual assault by a (entering an office where a secretary is working alone,
co-worker. To conflate such different violence under late at night). Official theft statistics relating to the
the heading of workplace violence confuses violence workplace are highly unlikely to include systematic
that is financially driven (and typically indirect or thefts of workers by owners and managers (e.g. looting
incremental), with violence that is emotionally driven of a pension fund; illegal underpayment in violation of
(and typically direct and immediate). minimum wage law), but could include theft by a co-
The notion of ‘workplace’ is implicit in the con- worker, or by an outsider.
cepts of corporate crime and occupational crime: i.e. Although it may be useful for some purposes to
they occur by definition in the context of the work- recognize that a significant number of crimes occur at
place. When this concept is then extended to the the workplace, it is not conceptually or theoretically
activities of state institutions even greater confusion useful to classify criminal offenses together on that
arises. We are informed by Ismaeli (2001: 532), in his basis. If a convenient market night clerk is robbed and
encyclopedia entry, that workplace crime occurs in murdered on the job by a stranger at 3 a.m., in an
the public sector ‘when public officials violently vic- inner city location, this may be ‘workplace crime’ in
timize citizens on the basis of either formal or infor- the broad sense of the term, but it is best classified as
mal policies.’ As stated, this definition encompasses conventional felony robbery and murder. Certainly
genocide, CIA assassinations, and budgetary cutbacks this crime—as well as many other offenses provided
for prenatal care, or inadequate funding for address- as examples—is about as far removed from what
ing AIDS. Lax enforcement (or non-enforcement) of Sutherland meant by white collar crime as one could
building codes can produce victims in the context of possibly imagine.
70 SECTION II   UNDERSTANDING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

If the term ‘workplace crime’ has any conceptual Gerring, John (1999) ‘What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework
for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences’, Polity
and theoretical value it seems that it should be 31(3): 357-93.
restricted to conventional forms of crime that occur at Gibbons, Don C. (1983) ‘Typologies of Criminal Behavior’, in Sanford H,
the workplace, further differentiated in terms of Kadish (ed.) Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, pp. 1572-6. New York:
whether they involve insiders or outsiders. The Free Press.
Green, Gary (1997 [1990]) Occupational Crime. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall
Publishers.
yy References Green, Gary (2001) ‘Occupational Crime’, in David Luckenbill and Dennis
Peck (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant Behavior. Volume II,
Aubert, Vilhelm (1952) ‘White-Collar Crime and Social Structure’, American Crime and Juvenile Delinquency, pp. 404-9. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner-
Journal of Sociology 58(November): 263-71. Routledge.
Braithwaite, John (2001) ‘Conceptualizing Organizational Crime in a World Helmkamp, James, Richard Ball and Kitty Townsend (eds) (1996) White
of Plural Cultures’, in Henry Pontell and David Shichor (eds) Collar Crime: Definitional Dilemma: Can and Should There Be a
Contemporary Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honor of Universal Definition of White Collar Crime? Morgantown, WV: National
Gilbert Geis, pp. 17-32. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. White Collar Crime Center.
Bryant, Clifton D. (1974) Deviant Behavior: Occupational and Organizational Ismaili, Karim (2001) ‘Workplace Crime’, in David Luckenbill and Dennis
Bases. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Peck (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant Behavior. Volume II:
Clinard, Marshall B. and Richard Quinney (1973 [1967]) Criminal Behavior Crime and Juvenile Delinquency, pp. 530-3. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner-
Systems: A Typology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Routledge.
Douglas, Jack D. and John M. Johnson (eds) (1977) Official Deviance. Meier, Robert F. (2001) ‘Geis, Sutherland, and White-Collar Crime’, in Henry
New York: J.B. Lippincott Co. N. Pontell and David Shichor (eds) Contemporary Issues in Crime and
Ermann, M. David and Richard J. Lundman (eds) (1996) Corporate and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honor of Gilbert Geis, pp. 1-16. Upper Saddle
Governmental Deviance, 5th edn. New York: Oxford University Press. River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Friedrichs, David O. (1992) ‘White Collar Crime and the Definitional Miethe, Terance D. and Richard C. McCorkle (2001) ‘Typologies of Crime’, in
Quagmire: A Provisional Solution’, Journal of Human Justice 3(3): David Luckenbill and Dennis Peck (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology
5-21. and Deviant Behavior, pp. 508-11. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Friedrichs, David O. (1996a) Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Pino, Nathan W. (2001) ‘Occupational Deviance’, in Patricia A. Adler, Peter
Contemporary Society. Belmont, CA: ITP/Wadsworth Publishing Co. Adler and Jay Corzine (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant
Friedrichs, David O. (1996b) ‘Defining White Collar Crime: In Defense of an Behavior. Volume I: Historical, Conceptual, and Theoretical Issues,
Inclusive Approach’, in James Helmkamp, Richard Ball and Kitty pp. 260-5. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner-Routledge.
Townsend (eds) Definitional Dilemma: Can and Should There Be a Quinney, Richard (1964) ‘The Study of White Collar Crime: Toward a
Universal Definition of White Collar Crime?, pp. 263-74. Morgantown, Reorientation in Theory and Research’, Journal of Criminal Law,
WV: National White Collar Crime Center. Criminology and Police Science 55(June): 208-14.
Geis, Gilbert (1962) ‘Toward a Delineation of White-Collar Offenses’, Robin, Gerald (1974) ‘White-Collar Crime and Employee Theft’, Crime and
Sociological Inquiry 32(Spring): 160-71. Delinquency 20(3): 251-62.
Geis, Gilbert (1982) On White-Collar Crime. Lexington, MA: Lexington Simon, David R. (1999) Elite Deviance, 6th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Books. Southerland, Mittie D., Pamela A. Collins and Kathryn E. Scarborough
Geis, Gilbert (1992) ‘White-Collar Crime: What Is It?’, in Kip Schlegel and (1997) Workplace Violence: A Continuum from Threat to Death.
David Weisburd (eds) White-Collar Crime Reconsidered, pp. 31-52. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Sutherland, Edwin H. (1940) ‘White-Collar Criminality’, American
Geis, Gilbert (2002) ‘White-Collar Crime’, in Gary W. Potter (ed.) Sociological Review 5(February): 1-12.
Controversies in White Collar Crime, pp. 37-52. Cincinnati, OH: Sutherland, Edwin H. (1949) White Collar Crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Anderson Publishing Co. Winston.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. How is occupational crime different from occupational deviance?

2. What policy implications arise from the way that white-collar crime is defined?
3. Is workplace violence a form of white-collar crime? Explain.

  