Theft in the Office it

¶ … Theft in the Office

It is common knowledge that some people who work in offices frequently engage in behaviors such as the regular theft of various office supplies such as pens and paper clips that might be considered criminal in other settings, but which are usually overlooked in many white-collar workplaces because "everyone does it" and many of the perpetrators would argue that they are using these materials for work-related activities outside the office. When such behaviors assume truly larcenous proportions such as with the recent Ponzi scheme by Bernard Madoff, though, the same relativity does not apply and white collar crimes of lesser magnitude still cost American business an enormous amount of money every year. In this environment, identifying appropriate and effective ways to prevent theft in the office represents a timely and important enterprise and represents the focus herein. To this end, this paper provides a review of Ellen S. Podger's recent study, "The Challenge of White Collar Sentencing" (2007) to define white collar crime, what types of thefts satisfy this definition and the steps this author recommends to reduce and prevent such thefts from occurring in the future. A summary of the research and important findings are presented in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), white collar crime is a term that "signifies various types of unlawful, nonviolent conduct committed by corporations and individuals including theft or fraud and other violations of trust committed in the course of the offender's occupation" (1598). The definition of "white collar crime" provided by Podger notes that, "Crucial to any discussion regarding white collar crime is an understanding of its meaning. This term was initially a sociological term coined by sociologist Edwin Sutherland, whose theme was to recognize crime committed by individuals in positions of power" (731). Since its introduction into the field of law in 1939, the term has become associated with a wide range of criminal activities that take place in the workplace but which are by definition nonviolent. The impact of such criminal activities on the corporations in which they occur and the stakeholders with investments in them, can be truly profound and severe. In fact, in some cases crimes that are deemed "white collar" by definition do include some violent criminal activities as well.

To date, the U.S. courts have adopted an offense-based approach to sentencing contained in Title 18 of the federal criminal code to address white-collar crimes. According to Podger, though, "What is particularly problematic about the existing offense-based approach is that there is no list of white collar offenses. Thus, arguing that the act determines the designation but having no clear list of crimes included and excluded leaves one not knowing if a crime should or should not be considered when discussing the topic of white collar crime" (731). Furthermore, a number of offenses that are included in the federal system exist outside of the provisions contained in Title 18 making appropriate sentencing especially difficult (Podger 731). In this regard, Podger emphasize that, "White collar crime definitions often recognize the economic nature of this type of crime. Key components tend to be 'deception and absence of physical force.' But when examining a criminal statute such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), determining whether the offense fits the white collar crime category may be dependent on the specific conduct involved" (731). Indeed, in RICO cases, there may well be elements of violent and even homicidal criminal activities involved that clearly make the thefts involved fall outside the purviews of the sentencing regimens established for white collar crimes. According to Podger, "If the conduct is fraud and the predicate act is mail or wire fraud, it should be designated as a white collar crime. When, however, the RICO predicate relates to a state-based offense such as murder or robbery, it should clearly be outside the realm of being a white collar crime" (731). Consequently, a mere cursory analysis of the specific controlling statute may not provide any substantive guidance concerning whether the criminal activity should be handled as a white collar crime. As Podger points out, "The circumstances of the conduct may be equally important in categorizing the activity" (732). These circumstances relate to the position of trust held by the perpetrator. In some cases, acts of theft are committed by an organization's top leaders, while in others they are committed by employees who are simply seeking to gain personal profit at the expense of the company.

While many observers might suggest that tougher and longer sentences in prison serve as the best deterrent to white collar crimes, Podger emphasizes that other alternatives exist that might better serve the interests of society as well as the individuals involved. To help reduce the incidence of future criminal behaviors by those in a position of trust and power, Podgor suggests that, "White collar sentences need to be reevaluated. In essence, the mathematical computations that form the essence of sentencing in the federal system fail to recognize the sociological roots of white collar crime" (732). Because many white-collar criminals are first offenders and pose little risk of future dangerous to society and are unlikely to regain a comparable position of power in which they can reoffend, Podger recommends considering alternative that could better rehabilitate individual criminals rather than the strict sentencing guidelines set forth by federal statutes. In sum, this author concludes that, "It is important to strive for a sentencing system that is classless, but in doing so it is also important to respect real differences" (Podger 732).