The idea of white-collar crime was first introduced by Edwin H. Sutherland during his presidential address at the American Sociological Society Meeting in 1939. He raised concern over the criminological community’s preoccupation with the low status offender and “street crimes” and the relative inattention given to the offenses perpetrated by people in higher status occupations. In his book, White Collar Crime, Sutherland explained further that white-collar crime “may be defined approximately as a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (p. 9). Unfortunately, this definition seemed to spark more debate rather than further delineate the range of criminal behaviors that constitute white-collar crime. People continue to focus on the word “approximately” and use that as a basis to stretch or shrink the scope of white-collar crime to serve their purposes.
Currently, the definition of white-collar crime is still hotly contested within the community of experts. Although there is a multitude of variations, there appears to be three major orientations: those that define white-collar crime by the type of offender (e.g., high socioeconomic status and/or occupation of trust); those that define it in terms of the type of offense (e.g., economic crime); and those that study it in terms of the organizational culture rather than the offender or offense. Additionally, there are also those that confine the definition mainly to economic crime, as well as others that include other corporate crimes like environmental law violations and health and safety law violations.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has opted to approach white-collar crime in terms of the offense. The Bureau has defined 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 the payment or loss of money or services; or to secure personal or business advantage.” (USDOJ, 1989, p. 3.) Some experts have criticized defining white-collar crime in terms of type of offense because this definition emphasizes the nature of the acts rather than the background of the offender. Within the FBI definition, there is no mention of the type of occupation or the socioeconomic position of the “white-collar” offender.
Currently, the definition of white-collar crime is still hotly contested within the community of experts. Although there is a multitude of variations, there appears to be three major orientations: those that define white-collar crime by the type of offender (e.g., high socioeconomic status and/or occupation of trust); those that define it in terms of the type of offense (e.g., economic crime); and those that study it in terms of the organizational culture rather than the offender or offense. Additionally, there are also those that confine the definition mainly to economic crime, as well as others that include other corporate crimes like environmental law violations and health and safety law violations.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has opted to approach white-collar crime in terms of the offense. The Bureau has defined 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 the payment or loss of money or services; or to secure personal or business advantage.” (USDOJ, 1989, p. 3.) Some experts have criticized defining white-collar crime in terms of type of offense because this definition emphasizes the nature of the acts rather than the background of the offender. Within the FBI definition, there is no mention of the type of occupation or the socioeconomic position of the “white-collar” offender.
