Submitted to-Dr.

Arshi Pal Kaur

Mam

SUBMITTED By:
Name-Inderpreet Suman
Reg.no11605106
Class-BA.LLB(5th year)
Sec- L1601
Roll No-B28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have been taught the subject of White collar crime by Respected Teacher Dr.
Arshi Pal Kaur Mam who helped me all through in the accomplishment of this
project. My sincerely thanks to the Respected Teacher, who helped me to gather
the various sources which I could give final shape to the topic under study. He not
only provided us a platform to compile but also guided us at all levels.

I, also thank my friends, for the cooperation in making available the books and
accessing the internet even during their free time.

INDEX
SR. TITLE PAGE NO.
NO.
1 INTRODUCTION 4
2 A RETROSPECT-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 5-9
IN THE 2000s
Advent Of The British East India Company
The Report of Santhanam Committee
Redefining White-Collar Crime From Offender to Offence
3 WHITE COLLAR CRIME AND THE 10-12
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
4 REGULATORY MEASURES 12-16
5 CONCLUSION 16
6 SUGGESTIONS 17
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 18

GENESIS OF WHITE COLLAR CRIME

A study of Emerging trends in India

Introduction- Our study ofWhite Collar Crimes, having American overtones, envisages the
existing scenario of rampant Socio-economic offences and wide spread corruption in Indian
context. The emerging trends ofsuch crimes are elusive indeed in as much as the law and its
enforcing agencies over all tends to be failing to prove the governance and its legitimacy to the
satisfaction of common people who suffer at large1. International bodies including the World
Bank have over these decades laid increasing emphasis on corruption as one of the primary
forces retarding development in the developing world. It appears to be an admitted fact of
common knowledge that certain business, occupations and professions provide opportunities for
violation ofrule of law in India since long. Such violations leading to number of socio-economic
offences/ crimes which often attract no public attention in our country due to widespread
poverty, illiteracy and rampant corruption in almost all organs/ agencies of governance due to
systematic failure thereof. It was perhaps in background in the context of American society- a
well-known criminologist- Sutherland conceptualized “white collar crimes’ which tend to have
their demoralizing effect on the total crime- picture in India as well. Admittedly, besides the
traditional crimes like assault, battery, robbery, dacoity, murder, rape, kidnapping and other acts
and omissions involving violence, there are increasing number of anti-social and anti- human
activities which the persons ofupper strata, in a sick society like ours, carry on in course of their
business, occupation or profession2. Thus, any report or complaint against such business or
occupation/professional tacties often goes unheeded and unpunished to the advantage of culprits-
the violators oflaw leading to corruption in the form of white collar crimes all around. But the
people know very little about the trickery of these business mafia criminals and even when they
know, they are apathetic towards the problem and as enormity because ofthe bitter fact that the
legal battles involving such crimes are dragged on for years in the courts and tribunals

MEANING OF WHITE COLLAR CRIME

In General crimes committed by the convicts employed in White collar jobs are termed as White
Collar Crimes. White Collar Crimes is an illegal act or illegal acts or doing oflegal act for
1
John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined 44 (1861)
2
Sellin T., Culture Conflict and Crime 32-33 (1960)
achieving an illegal objective committed by any person by non - physical and/ or non - violent
means to gain money or property wrongfully or to avoid payment of legal dues or retain money
or property wrongfully to obtain wrongful business of personal advantage3.

Definition of white collar

The concept of white-collar crime was first conceived by Edward Alsworth Ross (1907), and
approximately30 years later white-collar crime was bom in the ideas of Edwin H. Sutherland
(1939-40). Sutherland, in coining the term, defined whitecollar crime as a crime committed by a
person ofrespectability and high social status in the course of his occupation.” For Sutherland,
the white-collar category included “business managers and executives,” although, in research, he
included corporations as offenders as well. He believed that a white-collar offense was a crime if
it proved to be socially injurious and punishable.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines white-collar crime as “a non-violent crime usually involving
cheating or dishonesty in commercial matters.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the white-collar criminal as "a person who takes
advantage ofthe special knowledge or responsibility ofhis position to commit non-violent, often
financial, crimes."

A RETROSPECT-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Since World War II, a most significant and recent development in criminology has been the
emergence of the concept “White Collar Crime” as an area of scientific enquiry 4. The crime of
this nature, of course, is not at all a new one, but the generalization of such phenomena and the
incorporation of facts concerning illegal behavior ofthe higher classes into theories of crime
causation is an outcome ofthe recent research in this field. The literature in the shape of speeches
and publication produced by Edwin Sutherland, not only gave the name “White Collar” to this
new area, but stimulated wide-spread criminology circles concerning the appropriateness ofthis
concept as a legitimate focus ofresearch and theory. Perhaps, the earliest documented case of
white-collar crime law dates back to 15th century England. There has been a case popularly

3
See, Abdul LatifWani, “White Collar Crime : Its Concept” Kashmir University Law Review, Vol.6,1999, Pg. 31
4
Edwin Sutherland- “Is White Collar Crime a Crime?” (American Sociological Review April 1945), pp. 132-137
known as the Carrier’s case in 1473. Where the agent was entrusted to transport wool and he
attempted to steal some of it for him. Therefore the Star Chamber and Exchequer Chamber of the
English Court of Law adopted the ‘breaking bulk’ doctrine as it constituted the crime of larceny.
However, the growth ofindustrial capitalism in the eighteenth century ushered a new history of
crime and criminality. The very base of industrial capitalism is based on coercion and robbery.
Now, before we discuss the topic let us understand the meaning ofcapitalism. In the words
ofV.L. Lenin, “Capitalism is the name given to the social system under which the land, factories,
implements, etc.5 belong to a small number of landed proprietors and capitalists, while the mass
of a people possess no property or very little property and are compelled to hire themselves out
as workers. The land owners and factory owners hire workers and make them produce wires of
different kind which they sell on the market. The factory owners furthermore, pay the workers
Information only such a wage as provides a bare subsistence for them and their families, while
everything that the worker produces over and above these amount goes to the factory owner’s
pocket as his profit.” Seen in this context, since there has been nothing to the major mass of the
society except their bare subsistence, they were left with no better option than to sell their
labour-power to survive. Whereas, the exploiting class, generally termed as the bourgeoisies,
took the advantage ofthe situation and made more and more wealth out ofthe labours of the
working class. Consequently, the wealth remained concentrated in the hands ofonly certain class
ofpeople, where most ofthem formed a part ofthe exploited class left with no freedom for work
but to sell their labour-power.

The process of emergence ofthese conditions was termed by Karl Marx as ‘primitive
accumulation’ while in the words of Adam Smith, it was ‘previous accumulation.’ Therefore, the
Dutch Marxist, William Bonger contended that criminal attitude develops among the working
class under capitalism due to conditions ofmisery and at the same time the criminal attitude
develops among the bourgeoisie from the avarice fostered when capitalism strives.Albert Morris
refers to a paper entitled ‘Criminal Capitalists’ which was read by Edwin C. Hill before the
International Congress on the Prevention and Repression of Crime at London in 1872. In this
paper the learned writer underlined the growing incidence of crime as an organized business and
its evil effects on society.Therefore, it is to be understood that industrial capitalism brought about
a grave change in the mind and attitude of the people. Accumulating money at the cost of others
5
Information available at, http://www.publishyourarticles.net/ “ Essay on White Collar Crime in India,”.
became the sole goal ofthe individual who were in a position to dominate over the will ofthe
others. With this began the eat fight of grabbing money by hook or by crook. Britain, among the
other European countries were concerned, played the most nasty game in acquiring wealth giving
up all the ethics and morals they ever had. They made wealth by looting their colonies and
adopting the devastating barbaric method in doing it6.

According to the Parliamentary Reports, it has been found that the British East India Company,
only within their first ten years of colonial rule in India extorted wealth from the Indians in the
name of ‘gifts’ which worth round six million pound sterling. Therefore, there can be no denial
of the fact the very structure of the industrial capitalism is built on crimes and criminality.
Therefore, as being discussed, the birth of white collar crimes took place in the Industrial
Revolution in Western industrial societies which led a vast impact all throughout the globe. The
developing countries, which at that time were the colonies ofthe great European Nations, were
the worst victims ofthese crimes so committed against them. New companies rose into power,
they were able to squelch competitors and then implement monopolistic policies without fear of
being outsold by other companies. The public had to pay outrageously exorbitant prices for the
same thing that was available previously at a much cheaper rate. The reason behind the
exorbitant rise in the price rate was nothing but the corporate greed. However, it is to be
understood that the greed ofmaking money by the people ofthe upper class was not confined
within the boundaries of Europe.

IN THE 2000s

White-collar crime has become a topic of almost daily news. The white-collar crime that caused
the bankruptcy of Enron Corporation resulted in financial losses exceeding $66 billion to
stockholders, and likely helped lead to the recall ofthe governor ofCalifornia. Massive violations
oflaws pertaining to improper investments in mutual funds and large banking firms in the United
States have resulted in major losses to legitimate investors, whose losses are still being
calculated. The use ofshare holders’ assets to fund the lavish private lifestyles of corporate chief
executive officers, presidents, and chairs of the board of large corporations are becoming the
fodder ofscandal and media.

6
K.D. Gaur, “White-Collar Crime and its Impact on Society”, Criminal Law and Criminology, 2002 Pg.No.281
 Advent Of The British East India Company

The Industrial revolution threw a global impact whereby worldwide people indulged in making
money. These gave rise to resentment and political movements rallied for laws so as to prevent
monopolistic practices. It succeeded in United States ofAmerica in 1890, when Congress passed
the Sherman Antitrust Act which took the initiative to make the monopolistic trade illegal. Other
industrialized countries like Great Britain had a history of penalties involving white-collar crime
by that time, but it was not as sweeping as the Sherman Act. Some nations implemented a
smattering ofthese laws, known as competition or antitrust law, but did not have a strong binding
force for a long time. But more anti-white-collar crime sentiment rose in the late 19 century and
early 20th century in the United States as a result of a group of journalists known as muckrakers
who more often than not started exposing corruption both in the public and private sectors.

The concept of white-collar crime was first conceived by Edward Alsworth Ross (1907), and
approximately30 years later white-collar crime was bom in the ideas of Edwin H. Sutherland
(1939-40). Sutherland, in coining the term, defined whitecollar crime as a crime committed by a
person ofrespectability and high social status in the course of his occupation 7.” For Sutherland,
the white-collar category included “business managers and executives,” although, in research, he
included corporations as offenders as well. He believed that a white-collar offense was a crime if
it proved to be socially injurious and punishable. Therefore, an act of white-collar crime could be
dealt with in a criminal, civil, or administrative manner. Paul Tappan (1947), a lawyer and
sociologist, disagreed with Sutherland’s argument. Tappan believed that a behavior could only
be considered a white-collar crime ifthe act was legally defined as a crime and ifthe offender had
been convicted for the offense. That is, he rejected Sutherland’s belief that a white-collar crime
could be a violation of civil or administrative law without being condemned by criminal law.
Frank Hartung (1950) argued that while legal definitions were important in the general scheme
the general scheme ofthings, white-collar crimes represented a special case. Whereas, in most
instances, it is possible to distinguish between criminal and civil violations, in the case ofwhite-
collar crime the artificial distinction between civil and criminal laws was blurred and lacked
importance. In response to Hartung’s statement, Ernest Burgess (1950) rejected a totally legal
definition of crime, arguing for a labeling-perspective definition that required that persons could

7
Abdul LatifWani Kashmir University Law Review, “White Collar Crime -His concept” Vol.6, 1999
only be criminals if they perceived ofthemselves as such. From the white collar offender’s
perspective, Gilbert Geis’s (1967) findings would support Burgess’s definition of crime. Geis
found that white-collar criminals often do not perceive their acts as crime, and therefore do not
perceive ofthemselves as criminals.

The Report of Santhanam Committee

Perhaps a better way to look at white collar crime is to focus on the ways that practitioners and
judges distinguish white collar crime from common or street crime. A “white collar” prosecutor
or defense attorney, for example, would more likely define “white collar crime” as crime that
does not: a) Necessarily involve force against a person or property; b) directly relate to the
possession, sale, or distribution ofnarcotics; c) directly relate to organized activities; d) directly
relate to such national policies as immigration, civil rights, and national security; or e) directly
involve “vice crimes” or the common theft ofproperty. Sometimes the criminal statute itselfwill
render almost all crimes charged under that statue “white collar” by definition. For example,
charges brought under the securities fraud and antitrust criminal statutes are generally “white
collar” crimes under the above definition. On the other hand, under some criminal statutes
charges can be brought for both white collar and non-white collar offences depending on the
nature ofthe defendant’s conduct. For example, conspiracy, extortion, and obstruction of justice
are charges often brought in both white collar and non-white collar cases

Redefining White-Collar Crime From Offender to Offence

The restrictive nature of Sutherland’s definition ofwhite-collar crime and the inherent
ambiguities has necessitated the modification and expansion ofthat definition in order to bring
within its ambit and scope the behaviors which fall within the concept but which stand excluded
if Sutherland’s definition is accepted. Today some disagreement exists over the precise definition
of white-collar crime. Modem criminologists have broadened their definition of white collar
crime so that is embraces a wide variety of situations. Sutherland’s approach to the definition of
white-collar crime was offender-related. He had paid so much attention on the nature ofthe
offender that actual criminal behavior had gone unexamined. So, Sutherland’s offender-related
approach had to make way for offence-related approach and the first important shift away from
the legacy of Sutherland was accomplished when Herbert Edelhertz made the offence itself as
the principal object of inquiry. Edelhertz proposed to define white-collar crime as:

"an illegal act or series of illegal acts committed by non-physical means and by concealment or
guile, to obtain money or property, to avoid payment or loss ofmoney orproperty or to obtain
business orpersonal advantage. ’’

The offence-related approach taken by Edelhertz seems to have taken care of the inadequacies
that were present in Sutherland’s approach. Edelhertz has concentrated on the crime itself and
the means that are employed to commit that crime e.g., concealment and deceit.

crime, no doubt, remains the same i.e., economic gain. This approach has excluded the elements
that the crime must be committed during the course of one’s occupational activities and by
respectable person who also enjoys a high social status. The offence related approach taken by
Edelhertz seems to be comprehensive and concentrates on the modus-operandi and the objectives
ofthe crimes. However, the approach adopted by Edelhertz has been criticized on the ground that
it does not include offences such as forgery that entails a physical act. Also, by expanding the
concept ofwhite-collar crime, Edelhertz would include so many crimes of the poor that his
approach misses the whole point behind the concern criminologists have expressed about the
problem of white-collar crime and the abuse ofprivilege that it entails. An important feature of
Edelhertz definition of white-collar crime is that the illegal act is committed non-physical means
and by concealment and deceit8. This position of Edelhertz has come under attack form
sociologist who regretted his slighting ofthe idea of abuse of power as the key aspect of white-
collar offences and his expansive extension ofthe term to such a variegated range ofbehaviors.
They were puzzled by the excision of violence from the realm ofwhite-collar crime, noting that
crimes such as unnecessary surgical operations, the manufacture of unsafe automobiles, and the
failure to label poisonous substances at the work place could be regarded as whitecollar crimes
with a strong component ofviolence9.

WHITE COLLAR CRIME AND THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

8
E.H. Sutherland, “White Collar Crime”, 1961
9
JanakRaj Jai, “ White Collar Crimes - Naked Exposures” 1st Edition 1987, Pg no. 6
White collar crime is primarily a crime which has to be dealt with, under the penal laws.
Nevertheless, since India has a written Constitution upon which the politicolegal setup rests, it is
worthwhile to examine whether there are any Constitutional law concepts which can function as
a tool against white collar crime. One of the purposes of having a written Constitution is to
subjugate executive power to the ‘Rule of Law.’ In this way, administration is informed by the
Constitutional values like equality fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness. These values
can be enforced speedily through judicial review or administrative action. Part-3 of the
Constitution contains a treasure trove of values which can serve as a benchmark for high quality
administration. The Supreme court of Indian Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of
India, has directed the three senior ministers of former Prime Minister’s Mr. NarshimaRao
ministry – Smt. Sheela Kaul, Mr. Sukhram and Capt. Satish Sharma to pay Rs. 50,00,000
compensation to the Government of India as punishment for misusing their discretionary power
as Minister.This will certainly deter the ministers and high public officials from misusing their
powers for personal gain. Although it is the function of the Executive to deal with such problems
but because of electoral politics it has no will to fight against corruption. In view of this inaction
on the part of Executive and the Legislature the Judiciary has taken this work in its hand because
under the Constitution a citizen has to seek justice from the courts and the courts are bound to
give justice to them.

JUDICIAL RESPONSE - LEGISLATION

The judiciary has taken a serious note of the growing intensity of the white-collar crimes. For the
sake of convenience the judicial response in this regard can be classified under the following
there headings:

 Judicial response under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 

The strict judicial vigilance over corruption is reflected in various judgments of the Apex Court. 
In J.Jayalalitha v U.O.I the Supreme Court10 observed: “The legislature has enacted the Act
and provided for speedy trial offences punishable under the Act in public interest as it has
become aware of rampant corruption amongst the public servants. While replacing the 1947 Act
by the present Act, the legislature wanted to make the provisions of the Act more effective and
also to widen the scope of the act by giving a wider definition to the term “public servant”. The
10
AIR 2011,SC 45
reason is obvious. Corruption corrodes the moral fabric of the society and corruption by public
servants not only leads to corruption of the moral fabric of the society but is also harmful to the
national economy and national interest, as the persons occupying high posts in government by
misusing their powers due to corruption can cause considerable damage to the national economy,
national interest and image of the country”.

In State of Maharashtra v Prabhakar Rao the Supreme Court observed that the definition of
public servant u/s 21 of I.P.C is of no relevance under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This
means that a person may be held liable under the Act even if he is not a public servant

In Govt of A.P v P.V.Reddy the Supreme Court observed: “The Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 was brought into force with the avowed purpose of effective prevention of corruption
and bribery. The said Act, with a much wider definition of “public servant” was brought into
force to purify public administration. Under the repealed Act of 1947, the definition of public
servant was restricted to public servant as defined in Section 21 of I.P.C. In order to curb
effectively bribery and corruption not only in government establishments and departments but
also in other semi-governmental authorities and bodies and their departments where the
employees are entrusted with public duties, a comprehensive definition of public servant has
been given in section 2(c) of the Act. When the legislature has given such a comprehensive
definition of public servant to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing growing corruption,
it would be appropriate not to limit the contents of the definition clause by construction which
would be against the spirit of the statute. The definition of public servant, therefore, deserves a
wide construction. The court is required to adopt a purposive approach as would give effect to
the intention of the legislature. Employees or servants of a cooperative society, which is
controlled or aided by the government, are covered by the Section 2(c) (iii) of the Act and hence
are public servant”. 

In Ram Narayan Poply v C.B.I the Supreme Court, defining the object and purpose of the
Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating To Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 observed that
the Act was promulgated with a view to recover public monies lost by certain banks and
financial institutions in securities where such losses arose as a result of such transactions. The
Court further observed: “It is equally trite to state the contrary proposition that where there are
no losses at all, the institution of the special court was wholly unnecessary and the special court
was not to try such transactions even if they amounted to some technical offences”.

The court further defined the purpose of section 13(2) of the POCA by mentioning that it intends
to deal with aberrations of public servants. The court held that he appellant in furtherance of
criminal conspiracy, in his capacity as a public servant abused his position by causing and/or
allowing MUL’s funds to be utilized for the wrongful gain of appellant 5. Thus, the court held
that the provisions of section 13(1) (c) read with section 13(2) are clearly applicable. 

Referring to the nature and the adverse affect of white collar crimes, the court observed: “The
offences in these cases were not of conventional or traditional types, the ultimate objective was
to use public money in a carefully planned manner for personal use with no right to do it. The
cause of the community deserves better treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its
judicial functions. The community or the State is not a persona non grata whose cause may be
treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of
moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculations
and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences to the
community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even
handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crime with a
permissive eye, unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.
Unfortunately in the last few years, the country has seen an alarming rise in the white collar
crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure. These cases are nothing
but private gain at the cost of public and lead to economic disaster”11. 

The Supreme Court, however, preferred to apply “reformative theory” instead of the punitive
theory of punishment in this case. The court observed: “Normally, in cases involving offences
which corrode the economic stability are to be dealt with sternly. However, considering the fact
that the occurrence took place a decade back, and the trial has spread over a few years, and the
death of one of the accused, we feel custodial sentence for the period already undergone would
meet the ends of justice. While fixing the quantum of sentence, we have duly considered the fact

11
G. Nagaijan & Khaja Sheriff, “White Collar Crimes in India”, International Journal of Social Science and
Interdisciplinary Research (IRJC), Vol.l Issue 9, September-2012
that in the instant case the amount has been paid back”. 

In Vivek Gupta v C.B.I the Supreme Court considered the scope of the jurisdiction of special
court dealing with corruption cases. The court held that even if the appellant was not charged
under the POCA but under sections 120-B/420 of I.P.C, the special judge has the power to try the
appellant with other co-accused who, in addition to the said sections, were also charged under
section 3 and 4 of POCA. The court, applying the provisions of sections 3and 4 of the Act and
section 220 and 223 Cr.P.C, held that such recourse is available to the special court. 

In State of M.P v A.K.Gupta the Supreme Court dealt with criminal misconduct committed by
the public servant while holding their offices. The court observed: “Section 13 of the Act deals
with various situations when a public servant can be said to have committed criminal
misconduct. Section 13 (1) (e) is applicable when the public servant or any person on his behalf,
is in a possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which
the public servant cannot satisfactorily account pecuniary resources or property disproportionate
to his known source of income. Section 13 (1) (e) corresponds to section 5 (1) (e) of the POCA,
1947 (old Act). But there have been drastical amendments. Under the new clause, the earlier
concept of “known source of income” has undergone a radical change. As per the explanation
appended, the prosecution is relieved of the burden of investigating into “source of income” of
an accuse to a large extent. The prosecution cannot be expected to know the affairs of an accused
person. These will be matters “specifically within the knowledge of the accused”, within the
meaning of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The legislature has advisedly used the
expression “satisfactorily account”. The emphasis must be on the word “satisfactorily” and the
legislature has, thus, deliberately cast burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible
explanation as to how he came by his large wealth, but also to satisfy the court that his
explanation was worthy of acceptance”. 

In R.SaiBharathi v J.Jayalalitha the Supreme Court observed: “The criminal law merely
prescribes the minimum standards of behaviour. While in public life, those who hold high offices
should not take shelter under the umbrella of criminal law but stand by high probity. Further,
criminal law is meant to deal with criminals ordinarily. Persons in public life are expected to
maintain very high standards of probity, and, particularly, when there is likely to be even the
least bit of conflict of interest between the office one holds and the acts to be done by such
person, ought to desist himself from indulging in the same. Such standards of behaviour were
scrupulously observed in the earlier days after independence, but those values have now
dwindled and instances of persons holding high elective offices indulging in self-aggrandizement
by utilizing government property or in distribution of the largesse of the government to their own
favourites or for certain “quid pro quo” are on the increase. We have to strongly condemn such
actions”. 

In this connection it is essential to refer the offence as specified under section 169 of I.P.C.
Section 169 specifies that for the completion of offence under section 169 the following
conditions must be fulfilled:

CONCLUSION

The threats and harm posed by White Collar Crimes to the well being ofIndians and the
economic development of this country cannot be underestimated. The White Collar Crimes is the
bane ofmost developing countries especially India. It is leading cause ofit’s under development
with its concomitant effects of poverty, squalor and disease. White Collar Crimes thrives on
weak institutions, bad leadership and bad governance; something urgently needs to be done to
nip in bud the increasing incidence ofWhite Collar Crimes before the economy collapse. These
White Collar Criminal activities because ofwidespread corruption in our offices & every walk of
life are not likely to be done away with so soon. Until & unless each of our laws is properly
enforced in their letters & Spirit by the law enforcing agencies & officials concerned with
fullhonesty & integrity. Though the anti corruption law & have analysed in the last chapter of my
thesis. It is this law which needs much of its proper enforcement especially against those who are
seldom prosecuted should be punished to the maximum. So also each of the laws which & have
analysed in other chapters need their proper enforcement by all those who are in the balm of
affairs, besides the traditional crimes like assault, battery, robbery, dacoity, murder, rape,
kidnapping and other acts and omissions involving violence, there are increasing number of anti-
social and anti- human activities which the persons of upper strata, in a sick society like ours,
carry on in course of their business, occupation or profession. Thus, any report or complaint
against such business or occupation/professional tacties often goes unheeded and unpunished to
the advantage of culprits-the violators oflaw leading to corruption in the form of white collar
crimes all around. But the people know very little about the trickery of these business mafia
criminals and even when they know, they are apathetic towards the problem and as enormity
because ofthe bitter fact that the legal battles involving such crimes are dragged on for years in
the courts and tribunals

SUGGESTIONS

The purpose of punishment besides reformative is different as well, So that it may deter the
accused from repeating the crime in future and may be a warning to those who are like- minded.
Accordingly, the law should not take a lenient attitude in fixing punishment to a White Collar or
Socio- Economic Criminal. For example hundreds ofpersons died after drinking country made
liquor which contaminated with some poisonous material.

 The punishment for such an offence under the Indian Excise Act is nominal.
 Thus, the harsh punishments should also be extended to White Collar Crimes, as well;
 The penalty might be extended up to sentence of death or life imprisonment the
circumstances so demand.
 The criminal liability for Socio -economic offences should be made absolute.
 The Indian Evidence Act should also be modified so as to shift the burden of proof of
innocence’s in case of White Collar, Socio-economic Crimes from the prosecution to that
or the accused. The accused should be held liable for the violation ofsuch laws, unless he
proves innocence.
 A provision should be made of public censure by publishing the names ofwhite collar &
social & economic offenders in the public domain with the help of digital medium
including local as well as national newspapers etc. This will have an added advantage
ours. The sentence ofimprisonment & time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Akdeniz, Y, 'Cybercrime', in E-Commerce Law & Regulation Encyclopaedia (2003).

 Alexander, L, 'Criminal Liability for Omissions: An Inventory of Issues' in S Shute and A
Simester (eds), Criminal Law Theory:
 Doctrines of the General Part (2002).
 Allens Arthur Robinson, 'Corporate Culture' as a basis for the Criminal Liability of
Corporations, A report for the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary
General on Human Rights and Business February 2008
 American Law Institute. Model Penal Code: Proposed OfficialDraft. Philadelphia, Pa..:
ALI, 1962.
 Anca Luila Pop, "Criminal Liability of Corporations- Comparative Jurisprudence‖, MSU
College of law(dissertation) 2006
 Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law 117 (5th ed., 2006) (1991)
 Australian Securities Commission, Annual Report 1991/92,Canberra, AGPS, 1992
 Balakrishnan. K; ―Corporate Criminal Liability - Evolution of the concept‖ (1998)
 Böse Martin, Corporate Criminal Liability in Germany, Ius Gentium-Comparative
Perspective on Law and Justice, Volume9, Springer, 2011, 22