Self-concept, criminal career of the occupational offender – Essay

Self-concept, criminal career of the occupational offender – Essay

The occupational offender does not conceive himself as a criminal, but perceives himself as a respectable citizen. His attitude is similar to that of an offender who is convicted for drunken driving, etc. The general public also is not able to condemn his activities openly as he remains engaged in a legitimate occupation.

Many writers therefore do not regard occupational offenders as real criminals. Cressey (Other People’s Money, The Free Press, New York, 1953) in his study of 133 occupational offenders (imprisoned for violations of trust) found three elements common in all offenders: a financial problem, rationalisations about the violations, and knowledge of how to violate trust law.

The violators were able to justify their criminal behaviour as non-criminal behaviour which allowed them to adjust themselves in business, home and society. They describe their behaviour as ‘permissible’ or ‘irresponsible’ or ‘due to unusual circumstances’ or ‘to pay to higher ups’ for which they were not to be labelled as criminals.

According to Clinard and Quinney (op. cit.: 33) the life organisation of the occupational offender is not built around a criminal role.

By and large, he plays the role of a respected citizen. The reputations of occupational offenders have been observed in several studies. Clinard (1952: 295) noted in his study that less than one violator in ten were reported to have had a criminal record.

In the studies of Hartung (1949) and Quinney (1962), it was found that the overwhelming majority of the offenders resided in the most desirable areas of the city. The Hawala scandal in India in 1995 pointed out that all persons involved were ministers, politicians, bureaucrats, and highly placed public servants.

Occupational (or white-collar) crime in India

In India, occupational crime is found not only (a) of the type that Sutherland has called white-collar crime (i.e., embezzlement, fraud adulteration and employee pilfering, etc.) committed by respectable and high-status people, or (b) of the type that Barlow has called ‘occupation-related crime’ committed by the lower-class people, but also (c) of “personal non-business type illegal acts” committed by the middle-class people.

The last category (i.e., V category) of illegal acts aims at concealment of income, avoiding payment of taxes, and obtaining personal advantages like false sales-tax or income-tax returns, showing lesser value of immovable properties to reduce the incidence of stamp duty, concealing capital gains tax, wealth and municipal tax, showing lesser rental income to evade income-tax, and concealing assets in insolvency proceedings, and so on.

Including all the illegal acts of V, ‘b\ and V types in occupational crimes would mean modifying and expanding Sutherland’s definition of ‘white-collar crime’ as well as Barlow’s definition of ‘occupational crime’. The above-mentioned ‘c’ type crimes are ‘non-business’ and ‘non-occupational’ crimes but undoubtedly they are economic crimes.

As such, we must consider not only crimes of ‘respectable persons’ in society related to their jobs or business (as stated by Sutherland) or crimes of “lower-class persons associated with their occupations (as stated by Barlow) but also crimes of middle-class persons” which, though not directly associated with their ‘occupations’, are yet full of adverse economic consequences to society.

These points out the need for finding a new comprehensive term which encompasses all three types of illegal activities mentioned above, i.e., (a) illegal activities of the upper, middle and the lower classes, (b) illegal activities related to business and occupation, and (c) illegal activities not directly related to occupation yet full of economic consequences for society.

In other words, we have to locate a term which may clearly define in our society “an illegal act achieving an illegal objective of gaining money for personal advantage committed by a person of any occupational status by non-violent means”. Tentatively, we may call it ‘occupational-economic crime’.

Some important occupational-economic crimes found in India in recent years are: Hawala transactions, tax and duty evasion, adulteration of food and drugs, banking and insurance frauds, foreign exchange violations, import/export violations, violation of industrial regulations, hoarding and black-marketing, and chit-fund frauds.

Some of the modus operandi in occupational-economic offences is: evasion of excise duty and income-tax, obtaining loans from banks on the basis of false/inflated security, illegal sale of import licenses, manipulation of accounts and showing reduced profits for the company, and showing false purchase of raw material.