Who Commits White-Collar Crime, and What Do We Know About Them?

Who Commits White-Collar Crime, and What Do We Know About Them?
Who Commits White-Collar Crime, and What Do We

Know About Them?
Paul M. Klenowski and Kimberly D. Dodson
The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime
Edited by Shanna R. Van Slyke, Michael L. Benson, and Francis T. Cullen
Print Publication Date: May 2016

Subject: Criminology and Criminal Justice, Organizational and White-Collar Crime
Online Publication Date: Apr 2016 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199925513.013.6
Abstract and Keywords
Our knowledge regarding white-collar offenders has increased substantially since the
time of Edwin Sutherland. A considerable percentage of white-collar offenders are gain
fully employed middle-aged Caucasian men who usually commit their first white-collar of
fense sometime between their late thirties through their mid-forties and appear to have
middle-class backgrounds. Most have some higher education, are married, and have mod
erate to strong ties to community, family, and religious organizations. White-collar offend
ers usually have a criminal history, including infractions that span the spectrum of illegal
ity, but many do not overindulge in vice. Recent research examining the five-factor per
sonality trait model determined that white-collar offenders tend to be more neurotic and
less agreeable and conscientious than their non-criminal counterparts. Type A personality
research could hold promise, but it has yet to be thoroughly examined.
Keywords: white-collar crime, fraud, occupational offenders, economic deviance, white-collar offenders, corporate
crime, embezzlement, economic crime, occupational fraud
ALTHOUGH it has been determined that overall crime rates have continued to decrease
for traditional street crimes during the past decade, the opposite is true regarding many
acts of white-collar crime. Recent figures indicate that from 2007 to 2011 certain white-
collar crimes were on the rise, including healthcare fraud (7 percent), corporate fraud (27
percent), securities and commodities fraud (34 percent), and mortgage and lending fraud
(50 percent) (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2011). Additional statistics suggest that
certain types of occupational frauds and abuse, including such offenses as asset misap
propriation, falsifying or submitting fraudulent statements, and bribery and corruption,
now cost U.S. businesses more than $600 billion annually (Association of Certified Fraud
Examiners 2012). Furthermore, recent victimization surveys conducted primarily in West
ern nations show that white-collar offenses are occurring with greater frequency than
conventional street crimes, and more alarmingly, the rates of these white-collar offenses
are substantially higher than traditional street crimes of acquisition including burglary,
robbery, and theft/larceny (Flatley 2007; Gordon et al. 2007; Levi et al. 2007; Nicholas et
Page 1 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

al. 2007; van Dijk et al. 2007; Shover and Hunter 2010). One recent U.S.-based victimiza
tion survey conducted by the National White-Collar Crime Center found that approxi
mately two thirds (63 percent) of respondents reported being the victim of a white-collar
crime (Kane and Wall 2006). Thus, it appears that these specific crimes are a pervasive
problem affecting millions of lives globally.
In addition to official statistics, individual cases involving white-collar crime have ap
peared in daily news coverage with increasing regularity beginning with the significant fi
nancial scandals of the early 2000s (Friedrichs 2010). Names such as Ken Lay, Bernie
Ebbers, and Bernie Madoff have become synonymous with white-collar crime, and their
cases highlight the deleterious impact these types of offenses have had on the world
economy. Lay, for example, served as the chief executive officer of the Enron (p. 102) Cor
poration, an American energy, commodities, and service company, from 1985 to 2002. Af
ter years of manipulating Enron’s accounting books to artificially inflate stock prices, Lay,
along with a cadre of his chief officers, was arrested and charged with multiple counts of
fraud and securities violations. As a result of these illegal acts, Enron was forced to file
for bankruptcy protection to the tune of $64 billion, one of the largest bankruptcies in
U.S. history. The Enron scandal not only jolted the nation’s economy but also destroyed
countless lives, costing thousands of people their jobs, pensions, and future economic sta
bility (Friedrichs 2010).
It is important to note that such celebrity cases as these do not accurately reflect the pop
ulation of those who commit these white-collar offenses. To be more precise, white-collar
crime does not always take place on a national stage, nor are these crimes restricted to
male corporate executives. For instance, authorities in Dixon, Illinois, recently charged
the city comptroller, Rita Crundwell, with misappropriation of funds, embezzlement, and
wire fraud. In November 2012, she admitted to stealing $53 million from the city over a
twenty-year period. As part of a plea agreement, she pleaded guilty to one count of wire
fraud and received a twenty-year sentence (Jenco 2013). The Crundwell case illustrates a
valuable point that will be addressed later in this essay: any person—regardless of age,
race, gender, class, educational level, or occupational status—can choose to commit a
white-collar crime.
In the subsequent pages, we summarize the research that has been conducted about
white-collar offenders. Based on our analysis, we offer the following conclusions:
• White-collar crime is a generic, yet relative, term that encompasses a wide array of
illicit acts. A more definitive typological scheme, similar to those created for tradition
al street offenses, must be established and subsequently applied before substantial em
pirical conclusions can be rendered regarding what know about the large spectrum of
offenders whose crimes range from basic identify thefts committed by conmen to high
ly complex financial frauds committed by corporate elites.
• To date, a significant proportion of the studies conducted have yielded a somewhat
consistent demographic profile (i.e., age, race, gender, class, employment status, edu
cation level, marital status, community, religion, and familial ties) of the typical white-
Page 2 of 27

collar offender. Based on what is known, a considerable percentage of white-collar of

fenders are gainfully employed middle-aged Caucasian men who usually commit their
first white-collar offense sometime between their late thirties through their mid-for
ties. However, recent research has noted an increase in commission by both females
and minority offenders for certain types of white-collar crime. Finally, most offenders
appear to hail from middle-class backgrounds, have some level of higher education,
are married, and have moderate to strong ties to community, family, and religious orga
nizations.
• Research on the criminal careers of white-collar offenders has determined that they
usually have a criminal history, including infractions that span the spectrum (p. 103) of
illegality—ranging from traffic citations to both high-level street and white-collar of
fenses. The limited body of research on white-collar offenders’ lifestyles shows that a
majority of them do not engage in an over-indulgence of vice (i.e., drugs, alcohol, pros
titution); in fact, it appears that only low-level white-collar offenders make these
lifestyle choices.
• Although limited, the research regarding the personality traits of white-collar offend
ers has provided some promising areas for future analysis. Recent research that exam
ined the five-factor personality trait model determined that white-collar offenders tend
to be more neurotic and less agreeable and conscientious than their non-criminal
white-collar counterparts. The type A personality research could hold promise for gain
ing added insights about white-collar offenders, but it has yet to be thoroughly exam
ined.
We begin in section I by offering a brief historical overview of what is meant by white-col

lar crime, highlighting the problems that continue to plague its application in research.
This section concludes by recognizing the importance of studying these offenses by spe
cific type, not merely under the generic term of white-collar crime. In section II, we intro
duce the importance of assessing what we know about white-collar offenders and the ap
proach we take to address this issue. Sections III, IV, and V then examine what is known,
respectively, about white-collar offenders’ demographic characteristics, criminal careers
and lifestyles, and personality traits. Finally, section VI provides suggestions for future re
search.
I. What Is White-Collar Crime?

A. Pioneering Efforts to Define the Problem
In 1939, during his presidential address to the American Sociological Society, Edwin H.
Sutherland presented his conceptualization of the term “white-collar crime.” Sutherland’s
decision to articulate his ideas about white-collar criminality was the product of his dis
satisfaction with the academy’s obsession with crimes committed by those of lower so
cioeconomic status, especially those committed by male juvenile delinquents. He argued
that crime was not merely a lower-class phenomenon, and that more attention must be
Page 3 of 27

given to those crimes committed by members of the upper class. Sutherland (1949, p. 7)
defined white-collar crime as “crimes committed by a person of respectability and high
social status in the course of his occupation.” He based this definition on his own ground
breaking study of the illegal and unethical conduct of the seventy largest corporations in
America, a study that forever altered the landscape of the criminological world by ex
panding our categories of crime into this new realm of “elite” criminality.
Although it is important to pay homage to Sutherland’s pioneering efforts on the

(p. 104)
topic, his efforts are not without shortcomings. The most notable failures of his work in
clude the following: delineating clearly between the various forms of white-collar crime
he examined; considering the influence of corporations over regulatory and legislative
processes; and distinguishing between organizational and individual white-collar acts
(Meier 2001; Geis 2007; Friedrichs 2010).
There were several immediate post-Sutherland efforts to refine the definition of white-col
lar crime. For example, Frank Hartung (1950) investigated violators of wartime regula
tions in the meat industry. He concluded that the actions of these workers, not just execu
tives, could be construed as white-collar crimes, which extended Sutherland’s definition
beyond those of high social status to include blue-collar workers. In 1953, Donald Cressey
also attempted to expand Sutherland’s definition by focusing on “trust violating behavior”
that occurred in the workplace. He claimed that occupational crimes (i.e., embezzlement)
involved three elements: (1) presence of a non-shareable financial problem, (2) an occu
pational position that provided access to other people’s money, and (3) verbalizations to
pacify guilt prior to commission (Cressey 1953). Cressey’s empirical contribution expand
ed the conceptualization of white-collar crime by highlighting the difference between cor
porate crime and what we now refer to as occupational crime. His research provides
clear evidence that not all people who commit occupational crimes are affluent business
executives; in fact, most people who hold a position of trust and fiduciary responsibility
within any given occupation have the potential to commit an occupational crime, regard
less of socioeconomic status. Cressey’s work irrevocably changed how the criminological
world viewed offenses committed in the workplace and provided the notion that anyone,
including minimum-wage employees, can commit an occupation-related white-collar of
fense.
To provide a more concise picture of what is known about white-collar offenders, the re
search reviewed for this essay centers upon a definition of white-collar crime that is simi
lar to the work of Cressey, a definition that is occupationally focused. Thus, white-collar
crime, as discussed in the subsequent pages, is defined as criminal acts committed by an
individual who takes advantage of his or her position of fiduciary trust and responsibility
for either a personal or corporate gain.
B. Making the Case for Typologies
Aside from Hartung and Cressey, only two other noteworthy attempts to redefine white-
collar crime occurred between 1950 and 1970. The first was by Geis in 1962, who sug
Page 4 of 27

gested that the term “white-collar crime” should only be applied to violations committed
by corporations, not by an individual (Geis, 1992). Edelhertz (1970) disagreed with Geis
and suggested that the term be broken down into categories to allow for empirical inves
tigation of the different forms of white-collar crime, especially those committed by indi
vidual offenders (Geis 1992). Building upon the suggestion of Edelhertz, Clinard and
Quinney (1973) formally proposed separating white-collar (p. 105) offenses into two dis
tinct categories for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of those who engaged
in these types of crimes. Their categories are (1) occupational crimes, which are crimes
carried out by any person at any level within an organization for his or her own purposes
or gain (i.e., employee and against employer) and (2) corporate crimes, which are crimes
committed by corporate officials for the benefit of or in the interest of the corporation. To
date, many scholars contend that Clinard and Quinney’s distinction has been the single
most influential typological scheme of white-collar crime ever presented, a true turning
point in regard to how these offenses should be examined (Geis 1992; Friedrichs 2010).
Since Clinard and Quinney’s novel proposal, others have attempted to formulate their
own typologies for studying white-collar crime (see Green 1990; Coleman 2006; Shover
and Hochstetler 2006; Hagan 2008). It should be noted that the purpose of a criminologi
cal typology is to organize patterns of crime and criminal behavior into homogenous cate
gories to assist with both the explanation of the illicit behavior and the appropriate re
sponse to it (Gibbons 2002; Dabney 2005). Most recently, Friedrichs (2007, 2010), build
ing upon the work of his predecessors, suggested that white-collar crime is merely a
generic term that encompasses a vast array of illegal activity; thus, to understand those
who commit such acts, a crime typology is needed to permit proper empirical examina
tion. Friedrichs provided basic criteria for differentiating between the types of white-col
lar crime that occur. His specific criteria consisted of the following: (1) the context in
which the illegal activity occurred, including the setting (e.g., corporation, government
office) and the level within the setting or the status or position of offender (e.g., wealthy
or middle class, executive or employee); (2) the primary victims (e.g., general public or
individual clients); (3) the principal form of harm (e.g., economic or physical injury/
death); and (4) the legal classification of the act (e.g., fraud, embezzlement, and insider
trading). Based on these criteria, Friedrichs has created a practical typology comprising
five distinctive categories of white-collar crime that permits a more concise empirical as
sessment of these various offenses. His typology consists of the following: (1) corporate
crime, (2) occupational crime, (3) governmental crime, (4) state or corporate crime/
crimes of globalization/high-finance crimes, and (5) enterprise/contrepreneurial/avoca
tional crime (see Friedrichs 2010, pp. 7–8, for a complete overview).
Although some scholars may disagree with his typological categories, at the least it ap
pears that Friedrichs has created a logical framework that encourages a more thorough
analysis of the various types of offenses that have been traditionally classified as “white-
collar” crime. By systematically separating white-collar offenses into distinct typologies,
more deliberate research can be conducted to understand further the specific kinds of
crimes committed within the various occupational sectors (i.e., private, governmental,
and nonprofit). Because past research has failed to disaggregate white-collar offenders by
Page 5 of 27

specific typologies, the empirical lines have been blurred with regard to what we actually
know about these offenders. Research studies have examined a vast array of white-collar
offenders that range from telemarketing conmen (see, e.g., Shover, Coffey, and Sanders
2004; Copes and Vieraitis 2009) to individuals who (p. 106) are engaged in legitimate pro
fessions but who use their position of trust to commit their crimes (Cressey 1953; Benson
1985; Jesilow, Pontell, and Geis 1993; Dabney 1995; Mason 1999; Gauthier 2001; Willott,
Griffin, and Torrance 2001; Evans and Porche 2005; Klenowski 2008). Thus, until more
deliberate efforts like Friedrichs’ are made to categorize these offenses into discernible
types based on agreed-upon empirical criteria, research regarding white-collar crime will
only continue to yield limited information regarding those who choose to commit such of
fenses.
II. Who Are White-Collar Offenders?

The early literature on white-collar crime contains assumptions about the profile of the
typical white-collar offender. Such assumptions were grounded in Sutherland’s (1949)
original description centering upon the idea that these offenders are highly educated men
who belong to the upper ranks of their organizations and who only commit offenses in
volving their occupations within their respective businesses. Since Sutherland’s classic
work, scholars have made limited yet empirically productive strides to understand who
chooses to commit these types of offenses. Based on our extensive review of the litera
ture, a variety of research methodologies (i.e., both qualitative and quantitative) have
been used to draw conclusions about these offenders that range from the professional
conman to the corporate executive. More specifically, it appears that certain research
methods have yielded a large percentage of what is known about white-collar offenders.
Key examples include (1) case studies (Geis 1967; Simpson and Piquero 2001; Faulkner et
al. 2003; Cullen et al. 2006); (2) historical ethnographies (Vaughan 1996; Lee and Ermann
1999; Vaughan 2007); (3) reviews of autobiographical accounts (Shover and Hunter
2010); (4) secondary data analyses (Pogrebin, Poole, and Regole 1986; Wheeler, Weis
burd, and Bode 1988; Daly 1989; Scott 1989; Weisburd, Chayet, and Waring 1990; Weis
burd, Wheeler, Waring, and Bode 1991; Benson and Moore 1992; Benson and Kerley
2001; Weisburd, Waring, and Chayet 2001; Lewis 2002; Holtfreter 2005; Shover and
Hochstetler 2006; Alalehto and Larsson 2011); (5) comprehensive literature reviews (El
liott 2010; Ragatz and Fremouw 2010); (6) surveys (Collins and Schmidt 1993; Walters
and Geyer 2004; Wells 2004; Blickle et al. 2006; Kane and Wall 2006; Poortinga, Lemmen,
and Jibson 2006; Listwan, Piquero, and Van Voorhis 2010); and (7) in-depth qualitative in
terviews (Zietz 1981; Benson 1985; Jesilow et al. 1993; Dabney 1995; Mason 1999; Willott
et al. 2001; Gauthier 2001; Shover et al. 2004; Evans and Porche 2005; Bucy, Formby,
Raspanti, and Rooney 2008; Klenowski 2008; Copes and Vieraitis 2009; Klenowski, Copes,
and Mullins 2011).
In this chapter, a comprehensive review of the post-Sutherland research regarding what

we actually know about white-collar offenders will be discussed. In particular, three broad
categories of known offender characteristics that have been examined since the late
Page 6 of 27

1970s will be presented in sections III, IV, and V. These categories are (p. 107) white-col
lar offenders’ demographic characteristics, criminal careers and lifestyles, and personali
ty traits.
III. Demographic Characteristics of White-Col

lar Offenders
The social background and demographic characteristics of white-collar offenders are no
tably different from what is considered typical for traditional street-level thieves and com
mon criminals (Shover and Hunter 2010). Both crime categories truly represent a broad
spectrum of offenses and offender types, and this poses significant problems when at
tempting to draw legitimate comparisons between the two groups (Friedrichs 2010).
Moreover, demographic differences are also quite profound when comparing types of
white-collar offenders. For example, white-collar conmen who commit such acts as tele
marketing fraud and identity theft vary greatly demographically compared with those
who have legitimate occupations and use their positions of trust to embezzle from their
company (Shover et al. 2004; Copes and Vieraitis 2009; Shover and Hunter 2010). In ad
dition, other problems exist when comparing white-collar crimes by type, since each of
fense category encompasses diverse illegalities and is strongly correlated with one’s posi
tion within one’s respective company (Daly 1989; Weisburd et al. 1990, 1991, 2001).
Based on prior criminological research, it appears that with some exceptions (i.e., identi
ty thieves and telemarketing fraudsters), most conventional street criminals tend to com
mit more of the traditional street crimes (e.g., theft, burglary, and robbery), whereas
white-collar offenders tend to engage in various forms of corporate and occupational-re
lated offenses (e.g., embezzlement, fraud, asset misappropriation, and trade violations)
(Leap 2007). However, some scholars have determined, based on how one chooses to de
fine both street crime and white-collar crime, that it is not uncommon for street offenders
to commit white-collar offenses and for white-collar offenders to engage in more tradi
tional street crimes (Daly 1989; Weisburd et al. 1990, 1991; Benson and Moore 1992;
Weisburd et al. 2001; Lewis 2002; Shover and Hochstetler 2006; Copes and Vieraitis
2009; Shover and Hunter 2010).
That stated, the following demographic information regarding white-collar offenders has
been extracted from a narrow body of research consisting of a small group of studies with
limited samples of participants. Thus, the information presented here should be interpret
ed cautiously as a mere foundation for future white-collar crime research.
A. Age
Historically speaking, the age of onset remains one of the strongest predictors of criminal
activity. Decades of research on conventional street crime have consistently (p. 108) re
vealed that a large percentage of persons who commit these offenses begin doing so in
their adolescent years (Shover and Hochstetler 2006). However, this is not the case for
white-collar offenders. Research consistently demonstrates that these offenders tend to
Page 7 of 27

be considerably older, on average, and tend to commence their criminal activity later in
life than the common street offender. In fact, most studies show that the majority of
white-collar offenders are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for their first offense any
where between their late thirties to their mid- to late forties (Wheeler et al. 1988; Weis
burd et al. 1990, 1991; Benson and Moore 1992; Benson and Kerley 2001; Weisburd et al.
2001; Lewis 2002; Walters and Geyer 2004; Holtfreter 2005; Shover and Hochstetler 2006;
Ragatz and Fremouw 2010; Alalehto and Larson 2011). This finding should come as no
surprise, since legitimate employment opportunities are often restricted by age, educa
tion, and prior work experience (Green 1990; Wells 1992; Holtfreter 2005; Friedrichs
2010). Thus, it might be that the opportunity that attracts these offenders generally does
not become accessible until after they obtain a legitimate profession and amass years of
service, which results in a later age of onset (Shover and Hochstetler 2006).
However, when white-collar crime types were compared, lower-level offenses such as em
bezzlement consistently appear to have a lower age of onset (Pogrebin et al. 1986; Wheel
er et al. 1988; Weisburd et al. 1991, 2001; Lewis 2002; Poortinga et al. 2006). Most schol
ars contend that typical embezzlers tend to occupy lower-level positions within an organi
zation; thus, embezzlers would be younger, since most people begin their professional ca
reers as entry-level employees. Furthermore, prior research suggests that a moderately
significant correlation exists between the offender’s age and the level of sophistication of
white-collar offenses committed, a point that would benefit from further examination
(Weisburd et al. 1991; Benson and Moore 1992; Benson and Kerley 2001; Weisburd et al.
2001; Shover and Hochstetler 2006).
B. Race
With respect to race, most research indicates that conventional street crimes tend to be
concentrated in lower-class settings and are committed by minority offenders from lower-
class backgrounds (Braithwaite 1985; Benson and Kerley 2001; Friedrichs 2010; Parker
2013). However, the research regarding race and white-collar crime commission seems to
be ambiguous. Some prior research suggests that white-collar offenders tend to be pre
dominately white, especially when examining higher-level corporate federal offenses
(e.g., antitrust, Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] violations) (Pogrebin et al.
1986; Wheeler et al. 1988; Weisburd et al. 1991; Weisburd et al. 2001; Benson and Kerley
2001; Walters and Geyer 2004; Poortinga et al. 2006; Ragatz and Fremouw 2010). One
notable exception focused on the accounts of forty-two sanctioned physicians from Cali
fornia and New York (Jesilow et al. 1993). Jesilow et al.’s results show that a significant
percentage of non-white physicians (both foreign and American born) were responsible
for a considerable portion of medical-related (p. 109) frauds. One hypothesis regarding
this unique finding is that these particular doctors focused their practices in urban, low-
income areas where oversight was closely regulated, and a majority of the funds were de
rived from federal and state social assistance programs (Jesilow et al. 1993). In addition,
in their comparison of the characteristics of federal offenders convicted in U.S. district
courts for both street and white-collar crimes between 1995 and 2002, Shover and
Hochstetler (2006) discovered that roughly 48 percent of convicted street offenders and
Page 8 of 27

32 percent of white-collar offenders were non-white (i.e., Hispanic or African-American),

indicating that a larger-than-expected portion of federal white-collar offenses are commit
ted by non-whites.
Aside from the aforementioned exceptions, it appears that the remaining research has de
termined that when lower-level white-collar crimes were examined (e.g., identity theft,
embezzlement, and check fraud), African-Americans represented a more significant per
centage of the offender population (Daly 1989; Lewis 2002; Shover and Hochstetler 2006;
Copes and Vieraitis 2009). According to Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data, it appears
that African-Americans are proportionately overrepresented for white-collar crime arrests
(i.e., over 25 percent) (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2011). Some scholars contend that
the reason for this overrepresentation lies in the fact that African-Americans tend to com
mit lower-level offenses unrelated to a legitimate occupation—offenses that are more like
ly to be reported, investigated, and officially processed by the authorities (Steffensmeier
1989; Lewis 2002; Friedrich 2010). In addition, some researchers argue that if the limited
amount of data that we do have suggest that minorities are overrepresented for lower-
level white-collar offenses, then whites may also be overrepresented for mid- to high-level
occupational offenses (Weisburd et al. 1991, 2001; Shover and Hochstetler 2006). Regard
less of these prior findings, a more concerted effort to investigate the relationship be
tween race/ethnicity and white-collar offense type should be conducted before firm em
pirical conclusions regarding race and white-collar crime can be offered.
C. Gender
As is the case with street crime, females make up only a fraction of the arrests and con
victions for white-collar offenses (Dodge 2009). However, a significant amount of evi
dence suggests that women are becoming increasingly involved as perpetrators of white-
collar crimes (Albanese 1993; Lybarger and Klenowski 2001; Haantz 2002; Lewis 2002).
The results of one particular 20-year longitudinal study of white-collar data from Califor
nia determined that although men committed the majority of the 12,238 white-collar of
fenses analyzed, a considerable proportion of white-collar offenses (e.g. embezzlement,
forgery, fraud) were committed by women both in and out of the workplace (Lewis 2002).
To date, the bulk of the research has shown that women tend to commit higher percent
ages of lower-level white-collar crimes, especially such crimes as embezzlement, asset
misappropriation, and embezzlement compared to other forms of white-collar crime
(Pogrebin et al. 1986; Wheeler et al. 1988; Daly 1989; Weisburd (p. 110) et al. 1991; Ben
son and Kerley 2001; Weisburd et al. 2001; Holtfreter 2005; Simon and Ahn-Redding
2005; Poortinga et al. 2006; Copes and Veraitis 2009). Although no single reason can be
pinpointed for the greater percentage of involvement in lower-level offenses, some schol
ars believe that this trend is a result of the continued male dominance of corporate Amer
ica (Daly 1989; Steffensmeier 1993; Forsyth and Marckese 1995; Dodge 2009).
Other scholars contend that crime commission might be based purely on occupational op
portunity (Green 1990; Holtfreter 2005; Shover and Hochstetler 2006). However, as the
women of females into corporate America continues, one should anticipate that their pat
Page 9 of 27

terns of involvement in occupational-related forms of white-collar crime will continue to

increase and could one day rival their male counterparts for certain types of offenses
(Dodge 2009; Klenowski, Copes, and Mullins 2011). For example, in regard to lower-level
types of occupational white-collar crimes committed in the workplace (e.g., embezzle
ment), it has been determined that women are now responsible for a significant percent
age of these types of offenses (Benson and Simpson, 2009). One analysis of UCR data for
the specific crimes of fraud, embezzlement, and forgery/counterfeiting from 1943 to 1991
supports the claim that women’s involvement in these specific types of white-collar of
fenses has been gradually increasing over time due in large part to their increased partic
ipation in the workforce (Forsyth and Marckese 1995). Lybarger and Klenowski (2001)
found similar trends regarding the significant increase of female involvement in the same
UCR offense categories from 1980 to 2000 and concluded that opportunity in the work
place opens the door for increased involvement in certain white-collar offenses. Thus,
based on these analyses, if trends continue in this direction, female rates of criminality
for these three offense categories will eventually equal that of their male counterparts.
However, until more gender-specific research is conducted on the various aspects of fe
male white-collar criminality, especially their involvement in higher-level crimes commit
ted in the workplace (e.g., SEC violations, tax fraud) along with their specific motivations
for commission, data regarding their involvement will continue to yield limited and am
biguous conclusions.
D. Class
As decades of criminological research have revealed, conventional street offenders tend

to hail disproportionately from poor and working-class backgrounds and, according to of
ficial statistics, a significant percentage of street crimes are committed by minority of
fenders (Benson and Moore 1992; Benson and Kerley 2001; Shover and Hochstetler
2006). However, in regard to the relationship between white-collar crime and the social
class of the offender, the research findings tend to be mixed. As previously noted, consid
erable debate has ensued since the time of Sutherland regarding whether only those from
the upper strata of society are capable of committing white-collar offenses. In recent
years, the work of numerous cohorts of white-collar scholars has provided a more deci
sive position on this topic. Most scholars now agree that in the broadest application
(p. 111) of the term “white-collar crime,” a large percentage of these offenders are gain
fully employed and are members of the middle class—a finding that has been consistently
supported in the research (Cressey 1953; Daly 1989; Weisburd et al. 1991; Mason 1999;
Benson and Kerley 2001; Weisburd et al. 2001; Benson 2002; Holtfreter 2005; Shover and
Hochstetler 2006; Shover and Hunter 2010). For example, researchers who analyzed the
data from original Yale Study have collectively arrived at the same conclusion that most
white-collar crimes are committed by members of the middle class. In fact, most analyses
of this dataset confirm that managers and their subordinates, and not owners of the elite
social classes, are often more directly implicated in the most serious white-collar acts
(Wheeler et al. 1988; Daly 1989; Weisburd et al. 1991; Benson and Kerley 2001; Weisburd
et al. 2001). This discovery seems logical since managers control key aspects of the orga
Page 10 of 27

nizational structure along with resource allocation and distribution for the day-to-day op
erations of their companies. Other scholars’ efforts have supported the findings of the
Yale analyses regarding the social class of white-collar offenders (see Pogrebin et al. 1986;
Mason 1999; Lewis 2002; Piquero and Benson 2004; Poortinga et al. 2006; Shover and
Hochstetler 2006; Shover and Hunter 2010; Ragatz and Fremouw 2010).
Most recently, researchers have attempted to appropriately categorize the social class of
the wide spectrum of occupational offenders as “privileged” (Shover and Hochstetler
2006; Shover and Hunter 2010). The so-called privileged class includes gainfully em
ployed individuals whose occupations range from low-level clerical staff to those who
work in certain professions (e.g., doctors, lawyer, and accountants) to corporate execu
tive officers. This categorization attempts to validate the prior research by solidifying the
notion that white-collar offenders tend to be products of the middle and upper classes
and are usually employed in what are referred to as “respectable” occupations within cor
porate America, many of which require certain standards for employment. The remaining
members of society are employed in what is labeled as “dirty work” or the working-class
occupations, which refers to jobs that most people understand must be carried out but
are undesirable (e.g., construction worker, nursing home attendant, trash collector)
(Shover and Hochstetler 2006; Shover and Hunter 2010). This recent attempt to catego
rize those who commit these occupational offenses as “privileged” provides a practical
conceptual framework regarding the social class of “most” (i.e., middle and upper class
es) occupational offenders. However, this categorization fails to adequately account for
the countless acts of white-collar crime that are committed by both ordinary lower-class
street offenders (who may or may not be employed) and those who are employed in the
“dirty” working-class professions, two groups that commit a significant portion of white-
collar offenders (see Lewis 2002; Shover et al. 2004; Copes and Vieraitis 2009). Thus, to
eliminate future confusion resulting from comparisons of unemployed fraudsters with
those who commit their crimes while legitimately employed, future research efforts
should attempt to delineate between white-collar crime offense types, especially those
committed by occupational offenders of all social class backgrounds, not just those of the
privileged classes. Moreover, white-collar offenses committed by conmen and street of
fenders should be examined separately (p. 112) from the latter so that a more decisive un
derstanding can be gathered regarding the variations (e.g., demographic variables and
personality traits) between offender types, including information about their social class.
Overall, based on decades of more current and empirically focused efforts, it appears that
Sutherland’s claim that white-collar crimes are only committed by the elite in corporate
America has been challenged and reopened for further scholarly debate. In fact, recent
research (i.e., the past thirty years) has indicated that the bulk of those who choose to
commit occupational white-collar crimes do in fact hail from the middle and upper-middle
classes. However, the aforementioned results must be interpreted cautiously since these
findings may be a function of the paucity of data available on white-collar crimes and the
lack of accessibility to white-collar offender populations. In addition, it would be realistic
to assume that most white-collar crime scholars would contend that the relationship be
tween social class and white-collar criminality is relative and depends almost exclusively
Page 11 of 27

on how one chooses to define white-collar crime. Thus, until further research is conduct
ed with more specific and mutually acceptable definitional and typological parameters, no
definitive conclusions can be provided regarding the correlation between social class and
white-collar criminality.
E. Other Demographic Variables
With respect to employment status, white-collar offenders are more likely to be em
ployed, especially since employment is a necessary condition for many of these types of
offenses (Green 1990; Wells 1992; Kerley and Benson 2001; Benson 2002; Weisburd et al.
2001; Shover and Hochstetler 2006). Those convicted of white-collar offenses who were
unemployed would not meet most definitional schemes of an “occupational” white-collar
offender; consequently, these offenders should be categorized as non-occupational offend
ers and assessed separately from the former. As previously mentioned, limited empirical
value can be attained by comparing characteristics of legitimately employed professionals
(e.g., doctors who commit Medicaid fraud) with conmen (e.g., telemarketers). Unfortu
nately, one of the pitfalls of the prior research in white-collar crime is that it fails to make
this distinction (Jesilow et al. 1993; Shover et al. 2004).
In regard to education, the research shows that white-collar offenders, including some
considered conmen (i.e., telemarketers), are more likely to be educated, with the comple
tion of at least some college coursework (Weisburd et al. 1991; Benson and Moore 1992;
Benson and Kerley 2001; Weisburd et al. 2001; Willott et al. 2001; Benson 2002; Shover et
al. 2004; Holtfreter 2005; Poortinga et al. 2006; Shover and Hochstetler 2006; Ragatz and
Fremouw, 2010). Those offenders found to be the least educated are those who occupy
entry-level and clerical positions and commit such crimes as embezzlement and low-level
frauds (Pogrebin et al. 1986; Daly 1989; Weisburd et al. 1991; Weisburd et al. 2001; Ben
son 2002).
White-collar offenders are also more likely to be married (some more than once),
(p. 113)
have children, and have what’s considered relatively “stable” family situations (Pogrebin
et al. 1986; Daly 1989; Benson and Kerley 2001; Weisburd et al. 2001; Benson 2002; Wal
ters and Geyer 2004; Shover and Hochstetler 2006; Copes and Vieraitis 2009). This
should be no surprise, especially since most of these offenders tend to commit their of
fenses later in life (Benson 2002). As for the role of religion, a few studies have found that
white-collar offenders, compared to street offenders, have stronger community and
church affiliations (Weisburd et al. 1991; Benson and Kerley 2001; Weisburd et al. 2001).
Last, there is limited empirical evidence regarding the differences in family backgrounds
of street and white-collar criminals. For example, studies show that street criminals are
more likely to come from single-parent households (Schroeder, Osgood, and Oghia 2010)
while most white-collar criminals tend come from two-parent households (Shover et al.
2004; Shover and Hochstetler 2006). In addition, white-collar offenders have reported
that their fathers were the principal source of income and that their financial circum
stances growing up were secure and, in many cases, comfortable (Benson and Kerley
Page 12 of 27

2001; Shover et al. 2004; Shover and Hochstetler 2006). Street criminals have reported
that their mothers were the primary source of income and that their fathers were absent
from the home, which meant their financial circumstances growing up were largely inse
cure and tenuous (National Institute of Justice 2013; Parker 2013). Finally, there appears
to be significantly less abuse and criminality in the background of white-collar offenders
compared to street offenders. According to one analysis, street offenders were nearly
three times more likely to have a convicted offender in their immediate family while
growing up, and 18 percent were abused or neglected as children compared to 6 percent
of white-collar offenders (Benson 2002). Again, these findings should only be viewed as a
foundation for future research; limited conclusions regarding these demographic vari
ables should be made until further examination can be provided.
IV. Criminal Careers and Lifestyles of White-

Collar Offenders
The examination of demographic characteristics undoubtedly puts us closer to formulat
ing a more accurate understanding of white-collar offenders, but these factors only pro
vide part of the picture. As the realm of criminological inquiry continues to evolve, more
purposeful efforts to examine additional factors beyond demographic characteristics have
provided new insights regarding the typical white-collar offender. Two such key areas of
inquiry are information regarding the criminal career and lifestyle choices of these of
fenders. Although both areas require further empirical scrutiny, some practical informa
tion regarding white-collar offenders’ criminal careers has yielded some promising sug
gestions, and this information has been summarized below.
(p. 114) A. Criminal Career
White-collar offenders have traditionally been stereotyped as one-time offenders who,

when apprehended, never commit another offense (Green 1990). Recidivism rates for
white-collar offenders usually are significantly lower than the comparable rates for con
ventional offenders largely because known risk factors for recidivism are less common
among these white-collar criminals (Shover and Hochstetler 2006). However, research
shows that these offenders have more in common with street offenders than originally
imagined. In multiple analyses of federal court data from the original Yale Study, re
searchers determined that a significant percentage of convicted white-collar offenders
are repeat offenders having multiple prior contacts with the law (i.e., for both white-col
lar and street-level offenses), with the highest rates found among those convicted of the
least sophisticated white-collar offenses (Weisburd et al. 1990, 1991, 2001). The assertion
that white-collar offenders are often repeat offenders is also supported by Benson and
Moore (1992) and Benson and Kerley (2001) in their reexaminations of Forst and
Rhodes’ (1990) study of sentencing patterns in eight federal district courts from 1973
through 1978. Both of these secondary analyses determined that white-collar offenders
did have prior contacts with the law, especially arrests for minor offenses and previous
Page 13 of 27

white-collar criminal activity. Most recently, the Association of Certified Fraud Examin
ers’ (2004) survey of 363 perpetrators convicted of occupational crimes found that 12
percent of respondents had previous criminal histories. However, the results of these few
studies, many which examine the same federal sample of offenders, only provide a limited
picture of the white-collar offender as a career criminal; thus, further research examining
the careers of such offenders is warranted.
B. Lifestyles
Decades of criminological research have revealed that a large percentage of convicted

street offenders lead a self-indulgent lifestyle plagued with alcohol, drugs, and other vices
(Shover 1996). The underlying issues leading street offenders to a lifestyle of addiction
are varied, contradictory, and beyond the scope of this essay. However, although research
has revealed a strong correlation between a lifestyle of addiction and the commission of
conventional crimes, there is less than moderate support for this claim when examining
white-collar offenders. In his groundbreaking work on occupational crime, Cressey (1953,
p. 36) determined that “riotous living” was in fact a catalyst for a small proportion of peo
ple in his sample. Since Cressey, other scholars have reexamined the role of lifestyle—or
what Mason (1999) refers to “life as a party”—and its connection to white-collar criminali
ty (Zietz 1981; Shover et al. 2004; Klenowski 2008; Copes and Vieraitis 2009). The re
search suggests that the role of a self-indulgent lifestyle of vice (i.e., drugs, alcohol, and
gambling) can be found predominately in the words of lower-level occupational offenders
and professional conmen, not among mid- to upper-level (p. 115) employees and managers
(Shover et al. 2004; Copes and Vieraitis 2009). In fact, one study of forty convicted occu
pational offenders found that approximately one third admitted they used alcohol and
drugs, but they overwhelmingly proclaimed that these indulgences were not the cause of
their particular acts (Klenowski 2008). Many of these same offenders reported that their
drug and alcohol use was most prominent after the commission of their offense, with al
most all referencing their use as a means to deal with the guilt and anxiety they felt after
commission. Regardless of these findings, no significant answers can be offered regard
ing the role of offenders’ lifestyles in their white-collar criminality. Future research
should look to delineate between offender types (i.e., conman vs. legitimate worker) so
more valid and reliable conclusions can be drawn. Moreover, questions regarding other
addictive behaviors (i.e., frivolous spending, sexual liaisons) should be included so that a
more concise picture of these offenders can be obtained.
V. Personality Traits of White-Collar Offenders

Although there are some notable studies on the demographic characteristics of white-col
lar offenders, there are fewer studies that have examined the personalities of such offend
ers. Most of these studies have focused on the five-factor trait model, which is the most
widely used and accepted model in the personality literature. The “big five” factors are
broad categories of personality traits that consist of openness, conscientiousness, extra
version, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN) (see McCrae and Costa 1987; Costa
Page 14 of 27

and McCrae 1992). Some of the studies on personality and white-collar criminals have ex
amined self-control, which Hirschi (2004) explains was largely developed using the five-
factor model. Identifying personality traits related to white-collar offending is important
because it could help develop criminal profiles of such offenders and might provide in
sight into deterring white-collar offenders.
A. Five-Factor Trait Model
To date, three studies have used the five-factor personality model in an effort to identify
the personality traits related to white-collar offending (Collins and Schmidt 1993; Kolz
2000; Blickle et al. 2006). One study conducted by Kolz (2000) examined employee theft
among 218 individuals working at a women’s clothing chain. The participants completed
the conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism scale of the NEO Five-Factor In
ventory (Costa and McCrae 1992). Results showed that low levels of conscientiousness
and agreeableness were related to higher levels of employee theft.
Collins and Schmidt (1993) compared 365 prisoners convicted of white-collar of
(p. 116)
fenses with 344 individuals employed in upper-level positions of authority. They adminis
tered the California Personality Inventory (CPI), which includes items designed to mea
sure responsibility, socialization (e.g., adherence to social norms within an organization),
and self-control. Low scores are indicative of a lack of responsibility, inadequate socializa
tion, and low self-control. In addition, Collins and Schmidt (1993) included an Employ
ment Inventory (EI), a personality-based measure designed to measure job stability, con
scientious work attitudes and behaviors, and honesty. Both the CPI and EI survey items
include measures of the five-factor trait model.
Collins and Schmidt (1993) found that white-collar offenders displayed a greater tenden
cy toward irresponsibility; an inability to adhere to social norms set within the agency;
and lower levels of self-control, especially-risk taking behaviors, than individuals working
in upper-level management positions. They found that white-collar criminals were more
likely than their managerial counterparts to have unstable or spotty job histories; had
poor work habits, including a lack of conscientiousness and dependability regarding as
signed tasks; and failed to conform to company rules and policies.
Blickle et al. (2006) extended the work of Collins and Schmidt (1993) by comparing 76 in
carcerated white-collar offenders and 150 white-collar managers working from various
agencies in Germany. They administered a survey including items intended to measure
several personality traits such as hedonism, narcissism, and conscientiousness. People
who are hedonistic place a high value on material success and individual wealth. Narcis
sistic individuals demonstrate a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (i.e., inflated self-es
teem), a need for admiration, and a general lack of empathy. Those who are conscientious
strive for competence, order, fulfillment of duties, achievement, and self-discipline.
Blickle et al.’s (2006) findings showed that white-collar offenders were more hedonistic
than the non-criminal managers. Because white-collar offenders placed a higher value on
material success, it seems they were willing to pursue it through criminal means if neces
Page 15 of 27

sary. Narcissistic tendencies were stronger in white-collar criminals than in non-criminal

managers. In other words, white-collar offenders’ inflated sense of self-worth, coupled
with their need to be respected or admired by others, appeared to increase the odds that
they would commit white-collar offenses. In addition, their inability to empathize with
others freed them from feelings of guilt and shame while allowing them to pursue crimi
nal opportunities. However, contrary to theoretical expectations, the conscientiousness of
the white-collar criminals was higher than that of the white-collar managers. Blickle et al.
(2006) argued that this finding might not be wholly inconsistent with white-collar offend
ing because white-collar criminals must be conscientious in order to ascend the manager
ial ranks and gain a position of trust to further their criminal behavior. Therefore, it
seems plausible that conscientiousness would be high among white-collar offenders.
Blickle et al. (2006) also hypothesized that white-collar offenders would exhibit lower self-
control than white-collar managers. Their operationalization of self-control included be
havioral indicators of self-control because Hirschi and Gottfredson (1993) (p. 117) suggest
ed that such indicators were preferable. Specifically, Blickle et al. (2006) created four sce
narios that involved a description of a situation in which the actor has the opportunity to
cheat a target. Participants were given the choice to cheat (low self-control) or not cheat
(high self-control). The lower the score, the less self-control a person showed. As predict
ed, white-collar criminals demonstrated less behavioral self-control than white-collar
managers.
The studies conducted by Kolz (2000), Collins and Schmidt (1993), and Blickle et al.
(2006) attempted to identify personality traits that were associated with white-collar of
fending. In a related study, Listwan, Piquero, and Van Voorhis (2010) examined whether
personality traits explained recidivism among a sample of white-collar offenders. They ad
ministered a survey to sixty-four inmates convicted of a white-collar crime. They exam
ined four personality subtypes: (1) aggressive (manipulative, hostile, or possess antisocial
values); (2) neurotic (highly anxious or insecure, self-conscious, and envious or jealous);
(3) dependent (followers); and (4) situational (pro-social and conforming). These subtypes
overlap conceptually with the five-factor personality traits.
The results showed that personality traits were significantly related to recidivism among
white-collar offenders. More precisely, Listwan et al. (2010) found that the neurotic type
had the highest rates of recidivism. Because neurotic individuals are more likely to expe
rience anxiety, envy, and jealousy, they might resort to criminal behavior to offset these
feelings. Research also shows that neurotic individuals tend to have trouble controlling
their urges and delaying gratification (Thompson 2008).
B. Type A Traits
Taken together, the preceding studies lend support to the hypothesis that the five-factor
personality traits help explain white-collar crime. However, Elliott (2010) argued that type
A/B personality theory might hold additional promise for understanding the connection
between personality and white-collar offending. According to Friedman and Rosenman
Page 16 of 27

(1974) in their groundbreaking work on the topic, type A individuals tend to be extremely
competitive, to seek out financial gain, to exhibit impatience with others, and to display a
chronic sense of urgency and an inability to relax, and often feel the need to challenge
other type A people. Put differently, type A individuals tend to be extroverted, aggressive,
and competitive and to seek out ways to increase their own financial well-being regard
less of the consequences for others.
Although Elliott (2010) did not test her theory directly, she did use empirical research to
bolster her claim that type A individuals may be prone to white-collar offending. For ex
ample, research shows that the competitive nature of type A individuals, coupled with
their drive to succeed, might lead to maladaptive strategies, some of which are criminal
(Houston and Snyder 1988; Carducci and Wong 1998). Type A individuals also have an in
creased propensity for taking financial risks to achieve success and the recognition that
such success brings (Carducci and Wong 1998).
Bucy et al. (2008) interviewed forty-five white-collar crime experts in the United
(p. 118)
States, including federal prosecutors, qui tam (whistleblower) real estate agents’ attor
neys, and private defense attorneys who specialize in defending white-collar criminals.
The experts divided white-collar criminals into two groups: leaders and followers. The
participants consistently described leaders as having type A personalities; that is, they
described leaders as intelligent, arrogant, cunning, successful, greedy, prone to take
risks, aggressive, narcissistic, determined, and charismatic. Participants described the
followers as less confident, less aggressive, less ambitious, passive, subservient, dominat
ed, gullible, prone to blindly follow others, and less likely to take responsibility for their
own actions.
While the research on personality and white-collar offending is sparse, it is clear that per
sonality traits offer important insights for understanding who white-collar offenders are.
The research reviewed here demonstrates that white-collar offenders are more likely to
score high on the five-factor trait model; that is, they tend to be neurotic and less agree
able and conscientious than their non-criminal white-collar counterparts. The type A per
sonality research could hold promise for gaining added insights about white-collar offend
ers, although this remains to be empirically tested with white-collar offenders.
VI. Conclusion: Implications for Future Re

search
Based on the reviewed research, it is apparent that our knowledge about white-collar of
fenders has increased substantially since Sutherland’s groundbreaking efforts. Genera
tions of scholars following in his footsteps have established a foundation of information
that others should look to build upon. Thus, we will close our essay by first summarizing
what we actually know about these offenders, including their demographic characteris
tics, patterns of offending, lifestyle choices, and personality traits. Next, we will offer a
brief discussion of some of the more profound limitations regarding past and current re
Page 17 of 27

search in the hopes of inspiring future scholars to address these shortcomings so that we
may continue to build a more comprehensive understanding of who these offenders are,
and more importantly, why they choose to commit these types of offenses.
A. What Do We Really Know?
With regard to the sociodemographic characteristics of white-collar offenders, the bulk of

the research conducted to date has determined that a majority of them are gainfully em
ployed middle-aged Caucasian men who usually commit their first white-collar (p. 119) of
fense sometime between their late thirties and their mid-forties. However, recent re
search has also discovered an increase in crime commission by both women and minority
offenders for certain types of white-collar crime, especially lower-level frauds and embez
zlements. A majority of offenders hail from middle-class backgrounds and have some level
of higher education, are married, and have stronger ties to community, family, and reli
gious organizations than traditional street offenders.
With respect to offending patterns, scholars have discovered that most white-collar of
fenders usually have a history of prior contact with the law, including infractions ranging
from misdemeanors to both high-level street and white-collar felony offenses. As for their
lifestyle behaviors, research shows that many do not engage in an over-indulgence of vice
(i.e., drugs, alcohol, prostitution). In fact, it appears that only low-level white-collar of
fenders opt to participate in these hedonistic behaviors.
The research regarding the personality traits of white-collar offenders has provided some
promising areas for future analysis. Although limited in variety and scope, recent re
search that examined the five-factor personality trait model determined that white-collar
offenders tend to be more neurotic and less agreeable and conscientious than their non-
criminal white-collar counterparts, especially in regard to controlling urges and delaying
gratification. When compared to non-criminal colleagues, it has been discovered that
white-collar offenders have lower levels of self-control, a greater tendency toward irre
sponsibility, and higher levels of narcissism. In addition, although not fully examined, the
type A personality research could hold promise for gaining added insight about white-col
lar offenders, especially their proclivity toward the acquisition of power and control; how
ever, it must be thoroughly assessed before its empirical worth can be applauded.
Considerable and valuable strides have been made by modern white-collar crime schol
ars, especially in establishing a baseline of understanding about these offenders. Howev
er, considerable work remains to be done before more decisive conclusions can be drawn
regarding the various types of offenders who choose to commit these acts. Thus, to add to
what is known about white-collar offenders, future scholars must attempt to address the
empirical shortcomings of their predecessors—similar to the work that has been conduct
ed on traditional street crime since the early 20th century.
Page 18 of 27

B. Where Do We Go from Here?
With the intent of assisting future white-collar crime scholars, we conclude our essay by
listing some of the major issues with the prior research so that continued efforts can be
made to build upon what we know about these offenders.
First, a number of previous studies have relied heavily upon the exact same dataset of of
ficial records that were compiled as part of an original study undertaken by Yale Universi
ty (Holtfreter 2005; Leap 2007; Friedrichs 2010). This one dataset has been analyzed nu
merous times over a thirty-year period (see e.g., Wheeler et al. 1982, 1988; Daly 1989;
Weisburd et al. 1990, 1991, 2001). Thus, it should come as no surprise (p. 120) that the au
thors of these studies drew similar empirical conclusions regarding their demographic
findings of white-collar offenders, especially when compared to common street criminals.
Although these particular studies have provided new insights about the demographics of
white-collar offenders, their results are dated, notably similar, and not applicable to the
modern white-collar offender.
Aside from the issue of archaic data, other major limitations were exposed during our re
view. First, prior research fails to provide information regarding state-level white-collar
offenders. Much of the data that exists focuses primarily on federal offenders, with the
exception of minimal state-level research. This must be addressed to determine if any no
table differences exist between state- and federal-level offenders. Understanding the dif
ferences between these different levels of offenders may help us to identify the factors
that lead to such offending and to create policies to deter such behavior. Second, there is
a noticeable shortage of longitudinal data regarding white-collar offenders from both fed
eral and state jurisdictions (see for exception Lewis 2002). Longitudinal studies may re
veal criminal behavior patterns (i.e., traits, sociodemographic variables) that may help to
determine whether some white-collar offenders have a history of offending throughout
the life course and subsequently could be classified as career criminals (Benson 2002).
Based on the diminutive body of research on this topic, it appears that some white-collar
offenders have repeated contact with the criminal justice system, with the highest rate
found among those who could be classified as “blue-collar” and were convicted of the
least sophisticated white-collar crimes (Weisburd et al. 1991; Benson and Kerley 2001;
Holtfreter 2005; Shover and Hochstetler 2006; Shover and Hunter 2010). However, these
results should be interpreted with caution since there is a lack of sufficient reliable data
that would permit truly valid comparisons Third, little is known about white-collar offend
ers who live outside of major urban centers. Aside from the longitudinal study conducted
by Lewis (2002), most of what is known is based primarily upon federal convictions in ur
ban areas; thus, additional data regarding offenders living outside of major metropolitan
areas would be beneficial when attempting to assess the importance of class and white-
collar criminality. Fourth, previous information on white-collar offenders has been derived
solely from a population of convicted offenders—a problem that has consistently plagued
the field of criminology (Weisburd et al. 1991). This limitation may be more inherently
troublesome when discussing white-collar offenders, since many victims are unaware that
a crime has even taken place. Therefore, future research should attempt to include self-
Page 19 of 27

report studies of both corporate officers and employees at remaining organizational lev
els who have avoided arrest and prosecution for occupational offenses, including adminis
trative and regulatory violations. Fifth, no one agency, state or federal, collects consistent
information regarding the various forms of white-collar crime, including administrative
and civil violations (Friedrichs 2010). In fact, none of the studies examined for this essay
included violations of administrative and regulatory laws, both of which comprise various
types of serious white-collar offenses. Although formally acknowledged as problematic by
many early white-collar crime scholars, little has been done to address the offenses. Until
a more concerted (p. 121) effort is made by state and federal officials to gather more de
tailed and reliable data about these crimes, criminologists will continue to be limited in
their abilities to provide more substantial conclusions.
Again, regardless of the various empirical shortcomings of the early studies on white-col
lar crime analyzed for this essay, the efforts of these early scholars provide an important
baseline of understanding regarding what we know about certain types of white-collar
crime. However, much controversy remains regarding how white-collar crime should be
defined and studied, especially the offense- versus offender-based criteria debate (Edel
hertz 1970; Steffensmeier 1989; Shapiro 1990; Geis 1992; Friedrichs 2007, 2010). To
date, much of the existing research has favored the former, so it makes up the majority of
information compiled about what is known about white-collar offenders. Based on this
fact, it appears that Merton (1949, pp. 8–9) might be correct in his statement that acade
mics might have become “imprisoned in the framework of the (often inherited) concepts
they use.” Thus, we agree with those scholars who assert that the time has come to parti
tion the domain of white-collar offenses into criterion-based typologies so that new data
(i.e., demographic and personality-related information) can be amassed and examined re
garding these crimes, and more importantly, the offenders who choose to commit them
(Braithwaite 1985; Shapiro 1990; Geis 1992; Friedrichs 2010).
Acknowledgments
We thank Mrs. Linda Cheresnowski, Clarion University-Venango College Librarian, along
with Andrey Mojica, undergraduate student at Western Illinois University-Quad Cities,
who assisted us on gathering the research for this essay.
References
Alalehto, Tage, and Daniel Larsson. 2011. “Who Was the White-Collar Criminal? White-
Collar Criminals in Sweden, 1865-1912.” In Capitalism in Business, Politics and Society,
edited by Eugene H. Shelton. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Albanese, Jay. 1993. “Women and the Newest Profession: Females as White-Collar Crimi
nals.” In Female Criminality: The State of the Art, edited by Concetta C. Culliver. New
York: Garland.
Page 20 of 27

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2004. Report to the Nations on Occupational

Fraud and Abuse. Austin, TX: Author.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2012. Report to the Nations on Occupational

Fraud and Abuse. Austin, TX: Author.
Benson, Michael L. 1985. “Denying the Guilty Mind: Accounting for Involvement in a
White-Collar Crime.” Criminology 23: 66–73.
Benson, Michael L. 2002. Crime and the Life-Course: An Introduction. Los Angeles: Rox
bury. (p. 122)
Benson, Michael L., and Kent Kerley. 2001. “Life Course Theory and White-Collar Crime.”
In Contemporary Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honor of Gilbert Geis,
edited by Henry Pontell and David Shichor. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Benson, Michael L., and Elizabeth Moore. 1992. “Are White-Collar and Common Offend
ers the Same? An Empirical and Theoretical Critique of a Recently Proposed General The
ory of Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29: 251–72.
Benson, Michael L., and Sally S. Simpson. 2009. White-Collar Crime: An Opportunity Per
spective. New York: Routledge.
Blickle, Gerhard, Alexander Schlegel, Pantaleon Fassbender, and Uwe Klein. 2006. “Some
Personality Correlates of Business White-Collar Crime.” Applied Psychology: An Interna
tional Review 55: 220–33.
Braithwaite, John. 1985. “White Collar Crime.” Annual Review Sociology 11: 1–25.
Bucy, Pamela H., Elizabeth P. Formby, Marc S. Raspanti, and Kathryn E. Rooney. 2008.
“Why Do They Do It? The Motives, Mores, and Character of White-Collar Criminals.”
Saint John’s Law Review 82: 401–37.
Carducci, Bernardo J., and Alan S. Wong. 1998. “Type A and Risk Taking in Everyday
Money Matters.” Journal of Business and Psychology 12: 355–59.
Clinard, Marshall, and Richard Quinney. 1973. Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Coleman, James. 2006. The Criminal Elite, 6th ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Collins, Judith M., and Frank L. Schmidt. 1993. “Personality, Integrity, and White-Collar
Crime: A Construct Validity Study.” Personnel Psychology 46: 295–311.
Copes, Heith, and Lynne Vieratis. 2009. “Bounded Rationality of Identity Thieves: Using
Offender-Based Research to Inform Policy.” Criminology and Public Policy 8: 237–62.
Page 21 of 27

Costa, Paul T., and Robert R. McCrae. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-
R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho
logical Assessment Resources.
Cressey, Donald R. 1953. Other People’s Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Em
bezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Cullen, Frank, Gray Cavender, William Maaskestad, and Michael L. Benson. 2006. Corpo
rate Crime under Attack: The Ford Pinto and Beyond. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Dabney, Dean A. 1995. “Neutralization and Deviance in the Workplace: Theft of Supplies
and Medicines by Hospital Nurses.” Deviant Behavior 16: 313–31.
Dabney, Dean A. 2005. “Typologies of Crime and Criminal Behavior.” In Encyclopedia of

Criminology, edited by Richard Wright and J. Mitchell Miller. New York: Routledge.
Daly, Kathleen. 1989. “Gender and Varieties of White-Collar Crime.” Criminology 27: 769–
94.
Dodge, Mary. 2009. Woman and White Collar Crime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Edelhertz, Herbert. 1970. The Nature, Impact, and Prosecution of White-Collar Crime.
Washington, D.C.: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Jus
tice.
Elliott, Rebecca T. 2010. “Examining the Relationship between Personality Characteris

tics and Unethical Behaviors Resulting in Economic Crime.” Ethical Human Psychology
and Psychiatry 12: 269–76.
Evans, Rhonda D., and Dianne A. Porshe. 2005. “The Nature and Frequency of Medicare/
Medicaid Fraud and Neutralization Techniques among Speech, Occupational, and Physi
cal Therapists.” Deviant Behavior 26: 253–70. (p. 123)
Faulkner, Robert R., Eric R. Cheney, Gene A. Fisher, and Wayne E. Baker. 2003. “Crime by
Committee: Conspirators and Company Men in the Illegal Electrical Industry Cartel,
1954–1959.” Criminology 41: 511–54.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2011. Financial Crimes Report 2010–2011. Washington,

D.C.: Financial Crime Reports to the Public.
Flatley, John. 2007. “Mobile Phone Theft, Plastic Card and Identity Fraud: Findings from
the 2005/06 British Crime Survey.” Available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/
pdfs07/hosb1007/pdf
Forst, Brian, and William Rhodes. 1990. “Sentencing in Eight United States District
Courts, 1973–1978.” Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social
Research.
Page 22 of 27

Forsyth, Craig J., and Thomas A. Marckese. 1995. “Female Participation in Three Minor
Crimes: A Note on the Relationship between Opportunity and Crime.” International Jour
nal of Sociology of the Family 25: 127–32.
Friedman, Meyer, and Ray Rosenman. 1974. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Friedrichs, David O. 2007. Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Soci
ety, 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Friedrichs, David O. 2010. Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Soci
ety, 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Gauthier, Deann K. 2001. “Professional Lapses: Occupational Deviance and Neutraliza

tion Techniques in Veterinary Medical Practice.” Deviant Behavior 22: 467–90.
Geis, Gilbert. 1967. “White-Collar Crime: The Heavy Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases
of 1961.” In Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology, edited by Marshall Clinard and
Richard Quinney. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Geis, Gilbert. 1992. “White-Collar Crime, What Is It?” In White-Collar Crime Reconsid
ered, edited by Kip Schlegel and David Weisburd. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Geis, Gilbert. 2007. White-Collar and Corporate Crime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Gibbons, Don. 2002. “Typologies of Criminal Behavior.” In Encyclopedia of Crime and Jus
tice, edited by Joshua Dressler, Vol. 4. New York: Gale Group.
Gordon, Gary, Donald J. Rebovich, Kyung-Seok Choo, and Judith B. Gordon. 2007. Identity
Fraud Trends and Patterns: Building a Data-Based Foundation for Proactive Enforcement.
Utica, NY: Utica College, Center for Identity Management and Information Protection.
Green, Gary. 1990. Occupational Crime. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Haantz, Sandy. 2002. Women and White Collar Crime. National White Collar Crime Cen
ter. Available at http://www.nw3c.org/downloads/women_wcc1.pdf
Hagan, Frank. 2008. Introduction to Criminology, 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hartung, Frank. 1950. “White-Collar Offenses in the Wholesale Meat Industry in Detroit.”
American Journal of Sociology 56: 25–34.
Hirschi, Travis. 2004. “Self-Control and Crime.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Re

search, Theory and Applications, edited by Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs. New
York: Guilford Press.
Hirschi, Travis, and Michael R. Gottfredson. 1993. “Commentary: Testing the General
Theory of Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30: 47–54.
Page 23 of 27

Holtfreter, Kristy. 2005. “Is Occupational Fraud ‘Typical’ White-Collar Crime? A Compari
son of Individual and Organizational Characteristics.” Journal of Criminal Justice 33: 353–
65.
Houston, B. Kent, and Charles R. Snyder. 1988. Type A Behavior Pattern: Research, Theo
ry, and Intervention. New York: Wiley. (p. 124)
Jenco, Melissa. “Ex-Dixon Comptroller Gets 19½ Years for $54 Million Fraud.” Chicago
Tribune News (February 14). Available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/
2013-02-14/news/chi-rita-crundwell-sentencing-20130214_1_rita-crundwell-
dixon-coffers-paul-gaziano
Jesilow, Paul, Henry Pontell, and Gilbert Geis. 1993. Prescription for Profit: How Doctors
Defraud Medicaid. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kane, John, and April Wall. 2006. The 2005 National Survey on White-Collar Crime. Fair
mont, WV: National White Collar Crime Center.
Klenowski, Paul M. 2008. Other People’s Money: An Empirical Examination of the Motiva
tional Differences between Male and Female White-Collar Offenders. Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Department of Criminology.
Klenowski, Paul M., Heith Copes, and Chris Mullins. 2011. “Gender, Identity, and Ac
counts: How White-Collar Offenders Do Gender When Making Sense of Their Crimes.”
Justice Quarterly 28: 46–69.
Kolz, Arno R. 2000. “Personality Predictors of Retail Employee Theft and Counterproduc
tive Behavior.” Journal of Professional Services Marketing 19: 107–14.
Leap, Terry L. 2007. Dishonest Dollars: The Dynamics of White-Collar Crime. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Lee, Matthew T., and M. David Ermann. 1999. “Pinto ‘Madness’ as a Flawed Landmark
Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis.” Social Problems 46: 30–47.
Levi, Michael, John Burrows, Mathew Fleming, and Matt Hopkins, with the assistance of
Kent Mathews. 2007. The Nature, Extent and Economic Impact of Fraud in the UK. Lon
don, UK: Association of Chief Police Officers. Available at http://www.acpo.police.uk/
asp/policies/Data/Fraud%20in%20the%20UK.pdf
Lewis, Roy. 2002. White-Collar Crime and Offenders: A 20-Year Longitudinal Cohort
Study. San Jose, CA: Writers Club Press.
Listwan, Shelley J., Nicole L. Piquero, and Patricia Van Voorhis. 2010. “Recidivism among
a White-Collar Sample: Does Personality Matter?” Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Criminology 43: 156–74.
Page 24 of 27

Lybarger, Jeff, and Paul M. Klenowski. 2001. “Identifying Trends in White-Collar Crime: A
20-Year Analysis of UCR Data.” Fairmont, WV: National White Collar Crime Center.
Mason, Karen. 1999. Middle-Class, White Collar Offenders: Needy Women, Greedy Men?
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Department of Sociology.
McCrae, Robert R., and Paul T. Costa. 1987. “Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Per
sonality across Instruments and Observers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
52: 81–90.
Meier, Robert F. 2001. “Geis, Sutherland, and White-Collar Crime.” In Contemporary Is
sues in Crime and Criminal Justice, edited by Henry Pontell and David Shichor. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Merton, Thomas. 1949. Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward the Codification of
Theory and Research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
National Institute of Justice. 2013. Impact of Child Abuse and Maltreatment on Delin
quency, Arrest and Victimization. Available at http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/child-
abuse/impact-on-arrest-victimization.htm
Nicholas, Sian, Chris Kershaw, and Alison Walker. 2007. Crime in England and Wales
2006/2007, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 11/07. London: Home Office.
Parker, Wayne. 2013. Statistics on Fatherless Children in America. Available at http://

fatherhood.about.com/od/fathersrights/a/fatherless_children.htm (p. 125)
Piquero, Nicole L., and Michael L. Benson. 2004. “White-Collar Crime and Criminal Ca
reers: Specifying a Trajectory of Punctuated Situational Offending.” Journal of Contempo
rary Criminal Justice 20: 148–65.
Pogrebin, Mark R., Eric D. Poole, and Robert M. Regoli. 1986. “Stealing Money: An As
sessment of Bank Embezzlers.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 4: 481–90.
Poortinga, Ernest, Craig Lemmen, and Michael D. Jibson. 2006. “A Case Control Study:
White-Collar Defendants Compared with Defendants Charged with Other Nonviolent
Theft.” Journal of American Psychiatric Law 34: 82–89.
Ragatz, Laurie, and William Fremouw. 2010. “A Critical Examination of Research of the
Psychological Profiles of White-Collar Criminals.” Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice
10: 373–402.
Schroeder, Ryan D., Aurea K. Osgood, and Michael J. Oghia. 2010. “Family Transitions
and Juvenile Delinquency.” Sociological Inquiry 80: 579–604.
Scott, Donald W. 1989. “Policing Corporate Collusion.” Criminology 27: 559–87.
Shapiro, Susan. 1990. “Collaring the Crime, Not the Criminal: Reconsidering the Concept
of White-Collar Crime.” American Sociological Review 55: 346–65.
Page 25 of 27

Shover, Neal. 1996. Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boul
der, CO: Westview.
Shover, Neal, Glen S. Coffey, and Clinton R. Sanders. 2004. “Dialing for Dollars: Opportu
nities, Justifications, and Telemarketing Fraud.” Qualitative Sociology 27: 59–75.
Shover, Neal, and Andy Hochstetler. 2006. Choosing White-Collar Crime. New York: Cam
bridge University Press.
Shover, Neal, and Ben Hunter. 2010. “Blue-Collar, White-Collar: Crimes and Mistakes.” In
Offenders on Offending: Learning About Crime from Criminals, edited by Wim Bernasco.
Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Simon, Rita J., and Heather Ahn-Redding. 2005. The Crimes Women Commit, the Punish
ment They Receive. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Simpson, Sally S., and Nicole L. Piquero. 2001. “The Archer Daniels Midland Antitrust
Case of 1996.” In Contemporary Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, edited by Henry
Pontell and David Shichor. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Steffensmeier, Darrell. 1989. “On the Causes of ‘White-Collar’ Crime.” Criminology 27:
345–58.
Steffensmeier, Darrell. 1993. “National Trends in Female Arrests, 1960–1990.” Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 9: 411–41.
Sutherland, Edwin H. 1949. White Collar Crime. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Thompson, Edmund R. 2008. “Development and Validation of an International Big-Five

Mini-Makers.” Personality and Individual Differences 45: 542–48.
Vaughan, Diane. 1996. The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and
Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vaughan, Diane. 2007. “Beyond Macro- and Micro-Levels of Analysis, Organizations, and
the Cultural Fix.” In International Handbook of White-Collar and Corporate Crime, edited
by Henry Pontell and Gilbert Geis. New York: Springer.
Van Dijk, Jan., Robert Manchin, John van Kesteren, Sami Nevala, and Gergely Hideg.
2007. The Burden of Crime in the EU Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the Eu
ropean Crime and Safety Survey. Available at http://www.gallupeurope.be/euics/Xz38/
downloads/
EUICS%20%20The%20Burden%20of%20Crime%20in%20the%20EU.pdf
Walters, Glenn D., and Matthew D. Geyer. 2004. “Criminal Thinking and Identity in Male
White-Collar Offenders.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 31: 263–81. (p. 126)
Weisburd, David, Ellen Chayet, and Elin Waring. 1990. “White-Collar Crime and Criminal
Careers: Some Preliminary Findings.” Crime and Delinquency 36: 342–55.
Page 26 of 27

Weisburd, David, Elin Waring, with Ellen Chayet. 2001. White-Collar Crime and Criminal
Careers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weisburd, David, Stanton Wheeler, Elin Waring, and Nancy Bode. 1991. Crimes of the
Middle Class: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer
sity Press.
Wells, Joseph T. 1992. Fraud Examination: Investigative and Audit Procedures. Westport,
CT: Quorum.
Wells, Joseph T. 2004. Corporate Fraud Handbook: Prevention and Detection. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Wheeler, Stanton, David Weisburd, and Nancy Bode. 1982. “Sentencing the White-Collar
Offender: Rhetoric and Reality.” American Sociological Review 47: 641–59.
Wheeler, Stanton, David Weisburd, Elin Waring, and Nancy Bode. 1988. “White-Collar
Crime and Criminals.” The American Criminal Law Review 25: 331–57.
Willott, Sara, Christine Griffin, and Mark Torrance. 2001. “Snakes and Ladders: Upper-
Middle Class Male Offenders Talk About Economic Crime.” Criminology 39: 441–65.
Zietz, Dorothy. 1981. Women Who Embezzle or Defraud: A Study of Convicted Felons.
New York: Praeger.
Paul M. Klenowski
Paul M. Klenowski, PhD, is Assistant Professor and Director of Criminal Justice at the
Clarion University of Pennsylvania.
Kimberly D. Dodson
Kimberly D. Dodson, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Law Enforcement and Justice Ad
ministration at Western Illinois University.
Page 27 of 27

Who Commits White-Collar Crime, and What Do We Know About Them?

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Who Commits White-Collar Crime, and What Do We Know About Them?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Who Commits White-Collar Crime, and What Do We Know About Them?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Who Commits White-Collar Crime, and What Do We Know About Them?

Who Commits White-Collar Crime, and What Do We

Print Publication Date: May 2016

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

collar offender. Based on what is known, a considerable percentage of white-collar of­

We begin in section I by offering a brief historical overview of what is meant by white-col­

I. What Is White-Collar Crime?

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Although it is important to pay homage to Sutherland’s pioneering efforts on the

B. Making the Case for Typologies

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

II. Who Are White-Collar Offenders?

In this chapter, a comprehensive review of the post-Sutherland research regarding what

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

III. Demographic Characteristics of White-Col­

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

32 percent of white-collar offenders were non-white (i.e., Hispanic or African-American),

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

terns of involvement in occupational-related forms of white-collar crime will continue to

As decades of criminological research have revealed, conventional street offenders tend

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

E. Other Demographic Variables

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

IV. Criminal Careers and Lifestyles of White-

(p. 114) A. Criminal Career

White-collar offenders have traditionally been stereotyped as one-time offenders who,

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Decades of criminological research have revealed that a large percentage of convicted

V. Personality Traits of White-Collar Offenders

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

A. Five-Factor Trait Model

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

sary. Narcissistic tendencies were stronger in white-collar criminals than in non-criminal

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

VI. Conclusion: Implications for Future Re­

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

A. What Do We Really Know?

With regard to the sociodemographic characteristics of white-collar offenders, the bulk of

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

B. Where Do We Go from Here?

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2004. Report to the Nations on Occupational

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2012. Report to the Nations on Occupational

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Dabney, Dean A. 2005. “Typologies of Crime and Criminal Behavior.” In Encyclopedia of

Elliott, Rebecca T. 2010. “Examining the Relationship between Personality Characteris­

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2011. Financial Crimes Report 2010–2011. Washington,

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

Gauthier, Deann K. 2001. “Professional Lapses: Occupational Deviance and Neutraliza­

Green, Gary. 1990. Occupational Crime. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Hirschi, Travis. 2004. “Self-Control and Crime.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Re­

Subscriber: The W B National University of Juridical; date: 05 August 2019

collar offender. Based on what is known, a considerable percentage of white-collar of

We begin in section I by offering a brief historical overview of what is meant by white-col

III. Demographic Characteristics of White-Col

VI. Conclusion: Implications for Future Re

Elliott, Rebecca T. 2010. “Examining the Relationship between Personality Characteris

Gauthier, Deann K. 2001. “Professional Lapses: Occupational Deviance and Neutraliza

Hirschi, Travis. 2004. “Self-Control and Crime.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Re