Introduction:
In the past, good people who did one bad thing while under extraordinary pressure usually committed most asset misappropriation and occupation fraud. Because that was the view of the average white-collar offender the Justice System, and the public did my see them as true criminals. Accordingly, they received lenient treatment in the Justice System as a result. Today there is a different type of white collar according to Professor Holtfreter in her paper entitled Is occupational fraud “typical” white-collar crime? A comparison of individual and organizational characteristics that was published in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 33 in 2005 on pages 353– 365.
Argument:
Holtfreter recognized voids in the literature regarding white-collar crime and set about creating a study to address them. In order to do this she compiled a sample of 1,142 occupational fraud cases. Then she compared the differences between the in individual offender characteristics including age, gender, education, and their position in the organization. . Next she looked at the victims and identified their characteristics based upon size, type, existing control mechanisms, and revenue. . Holtfreter did this for each of three different types of occupational fraud, namely: asset misappropriation, corruption, and fraudulent statements. .
Holtfreter found a difference between the criminals that made fraudulent statements and those involved in asset misappropriation or corruption. The individuals who made fraudulent statement were generally high image personalities. The people who committed misappropriation or corruption were more middle class. The organizations subject to corruption were more often the large corporations.
Conclusion:
Based upon her research Holtfreter concluded “employees who committed fraudulent statements” “were more likely to be older, educated males who held managerial or executive positions in their victim organizations” and “were less representative of the white-collar crime prototype.” . Background checks were ineffective in dealing with this problem since many of the victim organizations preferred to deal with the situation internally rather than generate the difficulties engendered by large criminal investigations. Therefore, it is more common for those who commit fraudulent statements to be simply discharged. In closing Holtfreter indicate that this solution creates the problem that the individuals who make fraudulent statements have no evidence of it on their record and can commit “additional, more financially devastating frauds at each new job.” . Holtfreter proposed that these offenders should be forced to incur losses and that the organization they defraud should implement “ a policy of prosecuting fraud cases to the highest possible extent that the law allows.” .
Works Cited
Frusciante, Yvette. "Moral Lapse Versus the Psychopathic Fraudster: Implications for Our Justice System." Stevenson University Forensics Journal. (2010).
Holtfreter, Kristie. "Is occupational fraud "typical" white-collar crime? A comparison of individual and organizational characteristics." Journa of Criminal Justice (2005): 353 - 365.
Holtfreter, Kristy. "The effects of legal and extra-legal characteristics on organizational victim decision-making." Crime Law Social Change (2008): 307 - 330. <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10611-008-9139-z#page-2>.
