Who Counts White-Collar Crime · Crime Lab 1 · Midwestern State University

Every count of white-collar crime starts with a definition, and the definitions do not agree. Benson and Simpson's first chapter gives you two families: definitions built around the offender (who did it) and definitions built around the offense (how it was done). This lab puts twelve real events from the last two years in front of you and asks you to run each one through three definitions. The point is not to find the right definition. The point is to see, event by event, what each definition keeps and what it throws away. Work in pairs, but each of you submits your own response sheet at the end of class.

The three definitions you will use

Read each one and find its hinge, the single requirement that will do the most sorting work. Then answer the quick check at the bottom before you move on.

Sutherland, 1940 · offender-based
"A crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation."
Hinge: who the offender is, and whether the act happened inside a legitimate occupation. Sutherland treated civil and regulatory violations by corporations as crimes for his purposes, so "crime" here does not require a criminal conviction. What it does require is status and respectability.
Edelhertz, 1970 · offense-based
"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 the payment or loss of money or property, or to obtain business or personal advantage."
Hinge: the method. Nonphysical means plus concealment or guile, for gain. The offender's status and occupation are irrelevant. Edelhertz's four types were personal crimes, abuses of trust, business crimes, and con games.
Reiss and Biderman, 1981 · position-based
"Violations of law to which penalties are attached that involve the use of a violator's position of significant power, influence, or trust in the legitimate economic or political institutional order for the purpose of illegal gain, or to commit an illegal act for personal or organizational gain."
Hinge: a position inside a legitimate institution, used for gain. Status is not required, but a position is. Any violation with a penalty attached qualifies, criminal or not, and the gain can go to the person or to the organization.

Quick check. A person with no job lies on a public benefits application and collects money. Which definition is the only one that clearly counts it?

Edelhertz. The act is nonphysical, it uses concealment, and it obtains money. That is the whole test. Sutherland needs status and an occupation, and this person has neither. Reiss and Biderman need a position inside a legitimate institution, and there is none. Benson and Simpson make exactly this example the warning label on offense-based definitions: if you use Edelhertz, "someone who lies on a welfare application could be a white-collar offender." Keep that in mind as you sort. An offense-based definition counts more and counts lower.

Definitions are quoted as they appear in Benson and Simpson, Understanding White-Collar Crime: An Opportunity Perspective (2015), chapter 1, which is this week's reading. Original sources: Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5(1), 1 to 12. Edelhertz, H. (1970). The Nature, Impact and Prosecution of White-Collar Crime. National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Reiss, A. J., and Biderman, A. D. (1981). Data Sources on White-Collar Law-Breaking. National Institute of Justice.

Twelve events, three definitions

Each event below is real and was resolved or charged between 2024 and 2026. Each carries a line naming the charges actually brought or the law actually used, because whether an act was treated as a crime, a civil violation, or an administrative matter is part of what you are sorting. For each one, decide whether it counts as white-collar crime under each of the three definitions. Once you have made all three calls for an event, the reference call appears with reasoning. Some reference calls are marked arguable. Those are not errors in the answer key. They are places where the definition itself does not settle the question, and they are the events you will write about in your response sheet.

0 of 12 events sorted.

How many count?

Twelve events went in. Before you see the totals, commit to a guess for the strictest definition.

Under Sutherland's definition, how many of the twelve events clearly count? (Arguable calls are excluded from this number.)

6

Reference calls

Sutherland, clearly counts
7 of 12
Sutherland, arguable
3 of 12
Edelhertz, clearly counts
9 of 12
Edelhertz, arguable
3 of 12
Reiss and Biderman, clearly counts
9 of 12
Reiss and Biderman, arguable
0 of 12

Your calls

Look at which events fell out of each definition. Sutherland loses the romance scam and the benefits fraud outright, and it wavers on the bookkeeper, the researcher, and the ransomware pair. Those are the offenses of people without high status, or people whose status was not the instrument of the offense. Edelhertz keeps nearly everything, including the benefits fraud and the overseas scam, and it wavers in only two situations: where the harm was physical (the sewer discharge, the mill explosion) and where no court ever called the act illegal (the falsified science). Reiss and Biderman split the difference by asking one question, whether the offender used a position inside a legitimate institution, and that question drops exactly three events: the scam, the ransomware attacks, and the benefits fraud.

This is the general regularity Benson and Simpson describe. The two approaches are not contradictory. The techniques Edelhertz names, misrepresentation and concealment for gain, are used far more often by people who hold positions of trust, because those positions supply the opportunity. Status matters because it opens doors to the technique, not because the technique requires it. That is why the three definitions agree on the attorney, the senator, the pharmacist, and the corporation, and disagree at the edges, where either the status or the technique is missing.

The count is the consequence. Benson and Simpson note that offense-based definitions produce far more cases than offender-based ones. You just saw why. A research study, a government statistic, or a news claim about how much white-collar crime there is has already made this choice, usually without saying so. When you read one, the first question is which of these twelve kinds of events it was set up to see.

Occupational or corporate?

Clinard and Quinney (1973) drew a line that runs through every definition above. Occupational crime is committed by an individual in the course of a job, for the individual's own benefit, and often at the expense of the employer. Corporate crime is committed by officers or employees on behalf of the organization, for the organization's benefit. Sort the eight events that clearly involve a legitimate occupation or organization.

0 of 8
Your calls that match the reference
4
Occupational: the bookkeeper, the attorney, the researcher, the senator
4
Corporate: Amazon, the hospitality companies, the waste plant, the mill

Notice who was punished in each column. Every occupational offender here was an individual who went to prison or lost standing. In the corporate column, the waste plant managers and the mill's managers went to prison, but the largest case by far, Amazon at $2.5 billion, ended in a civil settlement with no admission of wrongdoing and no individual charged. The hospitality companies paid back wages and nothing else. The line between occupational and corporate is also, in practice, a line between people who get prosecuted and organizations that get fined. Unit 4 comes back to this.

Lab 1 response sheet

Answer the four questions below in complete sentences. Then use the button at the bottom to assemble your answers and your sorting calls into one block of text, and paste that text into the Lab 1 submission in D2L before you leave class. Your answers stay on this page and are not sent anywhere until you paste them.

Your name
1. Pick one event where the three definitions disagreed, or where the reference call was arguable. Which definition would you use for this course, and what does that choice do to that event?
Three to five sentences. Name the event by number and title, and say whether the charges actually brought match the definition you chose.
2. Which of the twelve events would you expect to appear in the number the news calls the crime rate? What would happen to a national count of white-collar crime if the count used Edelhertz instead of Sutherland?
Three to five sentences. The crime rate is the FBI's violent and property crime totals.
3. Benson and Simpson say offender-based and offense-based definitions are not contradictory, because they describe the same regularity from two sides. Use two events from this lab to state that regularity in your own words.
Three to five sentences.
4. Your case project. Name two real cases you are considering for the semester. For each, say which of the three definitions it clearly counts under and whether it is occupational or corporate.
Two to four sentences. This is a first pass, and you can change your case at the Part 1 workshop next week.

Sources for the twelve events