According to Barnet (2002), white-collar crime is defined as the crime committed by people that have respectable and high social status in different occupations and societies. However, the definition does not delineate the scope under which the criminal behaviors fall in white-collar criminality. The rise of white-collar criminality resulted from the difference in inattention given to it compared to the street level crimes where offenders were of low status. The definition of white-collar criminality varies depending on the type of offender, type of offense, and the type of organizational culture in which the crime is committed. For instance, the people that define white-collar criminality depending on the type of offender could consider whether the offender comes from an occupation of trust or high socioeconomic status (Barnett, 2002). On the other hand, those that define it depending on the type of offense could consider whether the crime was economic. As such, white-collar crime could range from economic crimes, environmental law violations, or the violations of health and safety laws.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations, however, approaches the white-collar crime regarding offense where they define it as the illegal acts that have the characteristics of deceit, violation of trust, and concealment but are not dependent on physical force application and violence (Barnett, 2002). The main drive to committing white collar crime is to obtain money, services, or property with the aim of avoiding loss of money or gaining a business advantage. However, the definition is criticized for its failure to consider the background of the offender such as their type of socioeconomic position and occupation.
The direction in which researchers are going with the theory of white-collar criminality is to understand the financial cost associated with the crimes. For instance, white-collar criminality has greater financial cost than all the other crimes that are perceived to be a crime problem. However, the white-collar crimes are less consequential compared to the lower class crimes. While the lower class crimes are handled by prosecutors, police officers, and judges, the white-collar crimes rarely result in any official actions apart from lawsuits handled in civil courts or commissions and administrative boards (Barnett, 2002). Moreover, while the lower class crimes result in fines, death, and imprisonment, the white-collar crimes result in mild penal sanctions such as loss of license and warnings.
The researchers are also taking the direction that seeks to elaborate on how to measure the crime using uniform crime reporting. As such, researchers will be in a position to elaborate what the offenders were suspected of using to commit the crime, their location, the type of property stolen, as well as the victim offended. For instance, high tech crime could have its data well represented depending on the element that the offender used to commit the crime. Researchers are seeking to analyze data indicating whether the offender used a computer while executing the crime. Thus, it makes it possible to measure the extent to which the crime was committed without losing the nature and effects of the offense; close to 42 percent of the offenses committed using computers are white-collar crimes (Barnett, 2002).
Fraud, on the other hand, could have its data gathered depending on the type of victim, location, as well as the property description. For instance, the victim of fraud, which is a white-collar crime, could be an individual, an institution, or even a government agency (Barnett, 2002). Regarding location, researchers have found out that most property crimes occur in homes and residences. Residences are the most frequent locations of ATM fraud, wire fraud, welfare fraud, and impersonation. On the other hand, embezzlement occurs in department stores. Researchers are also able to characterize as well as identify the victims of a white-collar crime as either an individual, business, a religious organization, a government, a financial institution, or the society. With all the above data shedding light on the white-collar crimes, it becomes possible to identify the white-collar crime offenders depending on the race, age, sex, and ethnicity. Apart from those that commit embezzlements, most of the white-collar crimes are committed by white males. However, most property offenses are committed by females (Barnett, 2002).
In conclusion, several facts are known that support the prominence of the white-collar criminality. The white-collar crimes are non-violent, committed by professional elites, as well as financially motivated. The consequences of white-collar crimes also have historical prominence. They include economic losses to individuals and society, emotional consequences, and physical harm as a result of victimization. Moreover, the extent of white-collar crimes is made hard to determine due to two factors. First, the white-collar crimes are rarely reported to the formal agencies such as the police (Levi, 2013). Second, there exists an ambiguity in the definition of the white-collar crime concept. However, with the use of uniform crime reporting, it is possible to question how the different types of white-collar crime occur making it possible to find the related white-collar crime indicators.
References
Barnett, C. (2002). The measurement of white-collar crime using uniform crime reporting (UCR) data. Washington, DC: Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. NIBRS Publications Series. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/nibrs_wcc.pdf
Levi, M. (2013). Regulating Fraud (Routledge Revivals): White-Collar Crime and the Criminal Process. New York, NY: Routledge.
