WHITE-COLLAR CRIME 1

White-Collar Crime

Name
Institutional affiliation
Professor’s name
Course
Date
WHITE-COLLAR CRIME 2

White-Collar Crime

White-collar crime largely entails a wide range of nonviolent crimes often committed by

commercial and government professionals. These crimes are defined by deceit or violation of

trust and in most cases do not rely on application of force (Payne, 2018). The motivation for this

type of crime is financial benefits or sometimes acquiring business advantage. A single white-

collar scam can cause devastating impacts on a corporation, affect families by taking their

savings or even cost the government billions of dollars (Pickett et al., 2016). With technology

advancement, white-collar crimes have become more sophisticated. A common white-collar

crime is wire fraud. The paper seeks to explore legislation involved in pursuing individuals

involved in white-collar crime.

The legislation that is active at pursuing individuals involved in wire fraud is Section

1343 of the Criminal Code of the United States. The legislation serves as the primary criminal

code of the federal government. The law is clear on addressing wire fraud since it stipulates

specific elements that qualify a crime as wire fraud (Fredericks et al., 2016). It also stipulates the

penalty for individuals found guilty of committing wire fraud within the United States. It states

that any individual who plans or intends to plan a scheme for purposes of defrauding or acquiring

property through wire or radio communication is liable to a fine or a jail term exceeding twenty

years (Fredericks et al., 2016). In case the violation happens in association with any benefit

authorized or impacts a financial organization, then the culprit is liable to a fine not exceeding

$1,000,000 or 30 years imprisonment. Although the legislation seems to be effective in

deterrence of wire fraud, the sophistication of most white-collar crimes makes it challenging to

convict offenders successfully. Based on the analysis of the Criminal Code, I would support any

white collar legislation that actively seeks to pursue perpetrators of internet fraud.
WHITE-COLLAR CRIME 3

Cases

One of the cases that shows how the government can recoup losses incurred due to white-

collar crime is United States v. Madoff (2009). In March 2009, the defendant was charged with

eleven counts of felony including wire fraud, securities fraud, mail fraud, theft from employee

benefit plan and money laundering among others. Mr. Madoff pleaded guilty to all the charges.

On June 29, 2009, Judge Chin sentenced the defendant to 150 years in jail for all the charges.

Prior to the sentencing, the defendant had entered a preliminary order of forfeiture which

required Mr. Madoff surrender all his rights and interest in particular properties. The forfeiture

agreement encompassed several apartment buildings in New York and assets within the

respective properties (United States v. Madoff, 2009). He also authorized the government to sell

his real estate, artwork, and entertainment tickets among other assets. Hundreds of clients

including individuals and organizations were affected by Mr. Madoff’s activities. As part of the

victim compensation process, the government requested the court to delegate the restitution task.

The government was permitted to distribute to the victims more than $2 billion of property and

money that was forfeited in the case (United States v. Madoff, 2009). Richard Breeden was

appointed to spearhead the compensation process on behalf of the Department of Justice. The

restitution funds were channeled through the Madoff Victim Fund. The case depicts how

forfeiture can be applied to recoup losses incurred due to wire fraud and other related white-

collar crimes.

Another case of white-collar crime is the United States v. Dish Network, LLC (2020). In

this case, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois found the company guilty for

unlawful telemarketing scheme. The company was ordered to pay $280 million in civil fines and
WHITE-COLLAR CRIME 4

damages caused to the nation and the states of Illinois, California and North Carolina. The

investigations revealed that the company had made more than 100 million unlawful

telemarketing calls (United States v. Dish Network, LLC, 2020). The court established that Dish

Network together with its partner retailers made telemarketing calls to individuals who informed

the sellers not to call them. The company also use robocalls to numbers listed on the National

Do-Not-Call Registry. The civil fines encompassed $168 remitted to the United States in relation

to at least 66 million unlawful call by the offender (United States v. Dish Network, LLC, 2020).

The court also enforced an injunctive relief again the company to avert future violations. The

court decision was supported by evidence presented during trail following an investigation by the

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) into the firm’s abuse of the FTC’s telemarketing sales law.

The case shows how the justice department can help to recoup losses incurred due to white-collar

crime through imposition of civil charges against offenders.

Occupational Crimes v. Avocational Crimes

Occupational crime is a form of white-collar crime when professions working in public

institutions or private firms utilize their positions to commit fraud against their employer or even

engage in other deviate behaviors at their respective work places (Payne, 2018). Occupational

crime often have huge impacts on the organizations as well as the public. On the other hand

avocational crime if a type of white-collar crime that are committed on a smaller scale. It

encompasses crimes committed by individuals beyond their place of work. For instance tax

evasion, credit card fraud as well as insurance fraud.

Similarities

Both occupational and avocational crimes are categorized as white-collar offences since

they are all perpetrated by professionals. Both forms of crime attract medium and long term jail
WHITE-COLLAR CRIME 5

sentences (Payne, 2018). Depending on the scope, offenders involved in both avocational and

occupational white-collar crimes can receive jail terms. Another commonality between

avocational and occupational crimes entails that difficulty in prosecution. Since most of these

crime are committed via the internet, the prosecutors find it challenging to gather adequate

evidence to facilitate convictions (Payne, 2018). The technicalities involved makes it easy for

both avocational and occupational offenders to escape convictions.

Differences

The victims in occupational crimes are the organizations where the perpetrators work;

whereas in avocational crimes, the government tends to be affected most. For instance, tax

evasion affects the government revenue targets, which in turn curtails national development

plans (Fredericks et al., 2016). Another difference entails the frequency of occurrence. While

occupational crimes are not common, avocational crime happen almost on daily basis. Offences

such as credit card fraud and insurance fraud happen often.

Elements of Political White-Collar Crime

Political white collar crime entails an offence committed by a politician or a government

official. The first element of this type of crime is that it is perpetrated by a public official. The

second aspect is that the crime is done for personal benefit or for the advantage of a specific

political party (Pickett et al., 2016). The benefit could be cash bribes or different political

advantages. The third element is that the crime does not rely on violence. Examples include

corruption, extortion as well as bribes.

One of the criminal law principles is the burden of proof. Based on this element the

prosecution is expected to prove that the defendant in guilty. The court can only sentence the

accused individual upon establishing that he or she had been proven guilty beyond reasonable
WHITE-COLLAR CRIME 6

doubt (Payne, 2018). With political white-collar crimes such as bribery and racketeering, it is

challenging to obtain evidence or witnesses to support the prosecution. As such, most individuals

accused of this type crime are never convicted due to the challenge of supporting the guilty

charges.

Another principle of the criminal law entail the presumption of innocence. Based on this

code, an individual is considered until he or she is proven to be guilty. Individuals being charged

with for committing political white crimes rely on this principle to save their reputation because

they cannot be penalized before the prosecution presents adequate proof to determine that they

are guilty (Pickett et al., 2016). Since it is difficult for prosecutors to present reasonable proof

against those charged with various political white crimes, the accused often get acquitted of the

charges.

Overall, the advancement of technology and the internet has made, white-collar crimes to

be more sophisticated. Prosecutors find it challenging to gather adequate evidence to ascertain

that the individual charged are guilty. The Criminal law serves as the primary legislation in

tackling white-collar crimes. The law is clear on addressing crimes such as wire fraud. However,

for those found guilty, the justice department can help to recoup losses incurred through

imposition of civil charges and forfeiture agreements against the offenders. Prosecutors of

political white-collar crimes find it difficult to apply the principle of the burden on proof due to

challenges in obtaining evidence.

WHITE-COLLAR CRIME 7

References

Fredericks, K. A., McComas, R. E., & Weatherby, G. A. (2016). White collar crime: Recidivism,

deterrence, and social impact. Forensics& Criminology Int’L J., 2.

https://tasdeeq.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/18.pdf

Payne, B.K. (2018)"White-collar cybercrime: White-collar crime, cybercrime, or

both." Criminology, Crim. Just. L & Soc'y 19(16).

https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/6329.pdf

Pickett, J. T., Loughran, T. A., & Bushway, S. (2016). Consequences of legal risk

communication for sanction perception updating and white-collar criminality. Journal of

Experimental Criminology, 12(1), 75-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9254-2

United States v. Dish Network, LLC WL 141844, (7th Cir. 2020)

United States v. Madoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 420 (2009)