Multifaceted Nature Of White Collar Crime

The Multifaceted Nature of White Collar Crimes

(INSERT AUTHOR HERE)

(INSERT DATE HERE)

(INSERT INSTITUTION HERE)

1 Since the term “white collar crime” was introduced to American society by Edwin H. Sutherland in 1939, criminologists have worked to build upon the original definition in hopes of producing terminology better suited to the multifaceted nature associated with the original subject. As noted by Gottschalk and Rundmo (2014), Sutherland’s original definition of white-collar crime was “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (Gottschalk & Rundmo, 2014, p. 175). While Sutherland is highly regarded as “the founding father of the criminology of white collar

The primary themes governing these acts are usually financial or political in nature but often a combination of both. An example of this is the broad definition of political white-collar crimes. “Political white-collar crime is crime carried out by individuals or networks of individuals who occupy governmental positions and seek economic or political advantage for themselves or their party” (Friedrichs, 2007, p. 9). These crimes should not be confused with terms such as “state crime” or “state-corporate crime,” despite the similar political overtones. “State crime (or crime of the state) is macro-level harm carried out on behalf of the state or its agencies” (Friedrichs, 2007, p. 9). Friedrichs cites cases like the Holocaust or the on-going mass-genocide in Darfur as prime examples of crimes of the state. Friedrichs goes on to break this individual definition into four sub-categories. The four main subsets of crimes of state as categorized by Friedrichs (2007) are criminal state, repressive state, corrupt state, and negligent

Friedrichs (2016) argues that preventing financial crime is not only difficult, it is practically impossible within the confines of criminogenic financial sector. He further notes that the sophistication and complexity of white-collar crime are the reasons for the sheer impossibility of the eradication of finance crimes (Friedrichs, 2016). Not only is finance crime practically impossible to stop, but it is also detrimental to the populations where it is practiced. Friedrichs (2016) coined the term “financialization” to define the motivations of the modern, self-serving financial sector which places its own greed above the needs of the general population and the economy in which it exists (Friedrichs, 2016). This subset of white-collar crime is unique in that it only pertains to a specific industry. However, it is arguably one of the most detrimental in how it affects mass populations and the economic market.

The term finance crime was coined by Friedrichs in his 2016 paper in order to differentiate the qualities which distinguished certain crimes from those already established in the arena of finance. Friedrichs (2016) mentions two primary categories—corporate crime and occupational crime—under the heading of white-collar crime, neither of which are necessarily motivated by financial gain, nor do they align with the political side of white-collar crimes (Friedrichs, 2016). The two terms were already