1

Activity: M13 – Comprehension

Charles O Agwa

CJU 435 OL - White Collar Crime

Professor Mark Turner

United Tribes Technical College

April 26, 2025

Questions:

1. Which level of jurisdiction (local, state, or federal) do you think is more effective in
prosecuting white collar crime and why?

I think white-collar crime is better prosecuted at the federal level. White-collar crimes
sometimes include sophisticated financial transactions, big amounts of money, and actions across
state boundaries. Federal organizations including the Department of Justice and the FBI have
more resources, specialized investigators, and advanced technology access. They also have more
knowledge managing challenging cases involving several jurisdictions. Better fit for big,
complex cases, federal prosecutors can bring charges under more general federal laws including
securities fraud and mail fraud statutes. Often with limited budgets, local and state prosecutors
may lack the required knowledge to handle these kinds of crimes. Therefore, it is more efficient
for punishing white-collar crimes with a broad influence since the federal government's capacity
to organize major investigations and pursue severe penalties helps to coordinate such actions.
2. Should local prosecutors target all white collar crime that occurs in their jurisdiction (the
county) and state attorney generals prosecute all white collar crime that occurs at the state
level? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach?

Having local prosecutors and state attorneys concentrate on all white-collar crimes in their
domains has benefits as well as drawbacks. One benefit is that it would guarantee that even
minor offenses are not overlooked and let crimes be handled faster. People would thus see that
financial crimes are taken seriously, so fostering stronger community trust. A drawback is that
local and state offices might lack staff, tools, or knowledge necessary to properly investigate and
punish sophisticated white-collar crimes. Smaller offices could also be overwhelmed by it,
resulting in errors or delays. Some crimes might call for cooperation between several
jurisdictions or higher degrees of government. Therefore, even if it is a good concept to have
local and state prosecutors engaged, they should also closely collaborate with federal agencies
when cases become too big or complex for them to handle alone.

3. Which white collar crimes are more efficiently prosecuted at the local level and why?
Which ones are more efficiently prosecuted at the state or federal levels?

Local level prosecution of smaller white collar crimes including local embezzlement, fraud
against small businesses, or identity theft inside one community is more effective. Local
prosecutors find these cases simpler to investigate and bring before trial since typically they
involve less people and less money. Larger crimes, such as securities fraud, healthcare fraud,
insider trading, and major corporate scandals, are handled more effectively at the state or federal
 3

levels. Many times, these crimes include intricate financial systems, several states, or perhaps
international ties. More budgets, specialized knowledge, and easier access to resources required
for handling challenging cases define state and federal prosecutors. The best option for major
white-collar crime cases is also federal courts, whose rules are especially intended to punish
crimes involving the stock market, banking, and government contracts.

4. Legislation passed recently by the Bush administration makes it more difficult for
members of the public to file class action lawsuits against corporations. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of this?

Making it more difficult to file class action lawsuits has one benefit in that it helps companies
avoid being inundated with many costly and occasionally pointless lawsuits. It can stop attorneys
from launching lawsuits merely to get large payouts without really benefiting consumers. It also
exhorts businesses to concentrate more on their operations than on ongoing legal battles. One
major drawback, though, is that it can make it far more difficult for average people to hold
businesses responsible for wronging them. Class action lawsuits let a group of persons with
minor claims band together to have more clout. Many people might not have the time, money, or
force to fight a large corporation by themselves without simple access to this legal instrument.
Companies may thus feel less under pressure to treat customers, employees, and the public
responsibly.

5. All criminal case defendants have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify during their own
trials. Considering cases such as those of former Enron CEOs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey F.
Skilling, as well as those of Martha Stewart and HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, do
you think such white collar defendants should testify or not, and why?

The particular case determines whether white collar defendants should testify. Generally, I think
most defendants should be quite cautious about deciding to testify. Testimony might help prove a
defendant has nothing to hide if they are confident, honest, and capable of clearly articulating
difficult problems. It can also inspire jury sympathy. Still, there are lot of hazards. Skilled
prosecutors may confuse them, trap them with demanding questions, or make them seem
dishonest even if they are speaking the truth. Media coverage of well-publicized events such as
Enron and HealthSouth adds more pressure. Even by accident, saying something wrong could
destroy their defense. The Fifth Amendment guards people from being compelled to assist in
building a case against themselves. Consequently, it is usually safer for a defendant to remain
silent and let their lawyers present their case unless they are quite well-prepared.
 4

References
Friedrichs, D. (2009). Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society (4th

Ed.). Cengage Learning