Regulatory Agencies and White Collar Crimes
The Soft Nature of Regulatory Authorities on White Collar Crimes
Considering regulatory law the regulatory agencies have a lot of difficulty in arresting the master minds behind the corporate crimes because more rules that are to be adhered by firms actually fuel corporate misconduct (Friedrichs, 2009). It is therefore very difficult for regulatory agencies to convict someone of insider trading thus it is easier to do away with such cases other than follow them to the latter considering the cost and benefit of doing that. Such instances make regulatory agencies focus more on regular cases than the high-profile cases and it is therefore vivid that regulatory agencies are too soft .
Looking at the case of Martha Stewart an illustration can be made on the lenience and laxity by the regulatory agencies. Way back in 2001 the month of December it is noted that Martha Stewart made sales of more than 3,000 shares that belonged to ImClone System Stocks in an effort to save her own ImClone stocks that were worth 45,000 (Heminway, 2007). The government and other concerned regulatory bodies believed that her broker had been tipped by Dr. Samuel Waksal. Dr. Samuel Waksal, who at that time was the CEO of ImClone, was serving a sentence of seven-years with charges of tax evasion and insider trading which were related to his personal sales of the stock of the company. Martha Stewart ended up being convicted of perjury, conspiracy and false statements. It is widely known that she was sentenced to serve a 10 month jail term. The other requirements that her sentence required were that she was supposed to pay penalties as well as fines of over 250,000 and her Presidency of Martha Stewart Living Omni-media was to be withdrawn(Heminway, 2007).
Relating this case to any other penalties that are enforced in the committing of street crimes like drug dealing, In Kansas USA, if an individual is found guilty of manufacturing a substance that has been documented as one that is controlled the individual faces a prison sentence of up to 17 years, in addition to this 500,000 is to be paid in terms of fines. In the same state, one who is convicted of the distribution of anabolic steroids, marijuana or hallucinogens the sentence is of a 4 year and 3 month Jail term and a 300,000 fine if this was a first offense. If it happens to be a second one the sentence is of a 17 year prison term and a fine of 500,000 (Heminway, 2007).
Critically analyzing the case in which Martha Stewart is involved, it is clear that regulatory agencies are too soft on white collar crimes. How does she manage to get only a 10 months sentence yet she stole millions of dollars and at the same time the fine she paid is similar to that one of an individual who simply sold drugs. In addition to this, the person that sold drugs get a sentence that is much longer simply because of social status difference. Furthermore, Stewart was only required to pay only 5 million of the total amount that had been recommended as a settlement and her personal compensation in the year 2005 was well over 2 million (Heminway, 2007). Much as white collar crimes have a bigger economic implication than the street crimes, regulatory agencies let people who have made away with millions of dollars to simply walk away (Amber, 2007).
It is important to note that in America the reason for the regulatory agencies to be more lenient when it comes to the control of white-collar crimes is partly because of the civil approach. This is done via giving of fines and sanctions to the offenders and as such the regulatory agencies tend to feel that it is only fair to let the charges be imposed (Geis, 2006). With such an approach, a very minimal number of white collar crime offenders are actually taken to the Justice Department and fully charged with committing of criminal charges.
Another case study on environmental crimes will be considered to further illustrate the laxity of regulatory agencies when it comes to white collar crimes. This case study illustrates the difficulties that come with dealing with white collar crimes and eventually lead to laxity on the part of regulatory authorities. Regulatory agencies have for a long time been incapable or reluctant in prosecuting and exercising full control over the offenders. The main reason is that the parties interested are naturally very powerful. Such parties that include huge companies usually put a considerable amount of pressure on governments and regulatory bodies.
Conversely, the government and regulatory bodies may be torn between protecting jobs and the environment. According to this case study regulatory bodies tend to be soft on the white collar crimes because of the difficulty in knowing who exactly the immediate victim is or perpetrators in order to prosecute corporations. Another problematic area is the ambiguity of the situation for instance to know exactly whether the actions that led to the crime were as a result of ignorance, negligent, criminal intention or bad judgment (Shover Routhe, 2005).
It is apparent that regulatory agencies are too soft on white collar crimes. When a common type of crime is committed, defense and prosecution is done as soon as the crime has taken place and an arrest has been done. On the other hand if it is a white collar crime, the carrying out of investigations by the prosecutors and the efforts of the defense council to protect the offenders, never resort to formal action. Looking at this issue from an enforcement perspective the same crimes are investigated by white-collar workers in regulatory agencies (Katz, 1988). It is most probable that the officials to be brought to book are either employees or tax agents. A defense council is then hired immediately the defendants know that they are the target long before any indictment is done. With such an approach white-collar crime prosecution and defense employs several strategic moves to shield information from the opposing side as opposed to other common cases.
Looking at this issue critically, the prosecution of white-collar cases with the aid of regulatory agencies becomes more expensive and time-consuming when measure up to typical common crimes. Consequently, limited resources make the prosecutors to have difficulties in justifying heavy expenditures for white-collar investigations that are problematic whereas the same resources might be devoted to solve several common-crime cases. If the regulatory bodies and organizations were to keenly follow up many of such cases, it is clear that several street crimes that could have been handled would be piling up and as such they opt to be lenient on such in an effort to deal with several crimes that are of a minor magnitude. With such a mind frame the regulatory agencies become more reluctant to sort out cases to do with white collar crimes.
Most of the regulatory agencies seem to be lenient in sentencing white collar crimes due to the complexity of the offenders. The common cases are easily sentenced in the sense that they are easily completed by a plea of guilt. On contrary when the regulatory authorities have to deal with offenders who have committed crimes that have taken place over a wide span of time there is a lot of economic implications. Most of the judges are torn between a rock and a hard place in the sense that they have to put in to consideration the social status of the person involved as well as the fact that they have betrayed their trusted position in society (Jrank.org, 2010).
Conclusion
Having certified that indeed the regulatory authorities are more lenient when it comes to the handling of high profile white collar crimes, it is vital to put in mind that many white collar related cases such as Martha Stewart and others related to white collar crimes are actually an obstruction of justice. This illustrates that even with increased regulation on insider trading, the white collar crimes will for a long time be treated more leniently than the street crimes by the regulatory agencies. It is imperative that the regulatory authorities keenly consider the social and economic impact of the white collar crimes. Still on the financial perspective, corporate crimes by and large cost billions of dollars. In addition to this, statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation have it that white collar crimes cost the United States more than 300 billion dollars every year. With such statistics it is paramount that the regulatory authorities change their attitude and do all that it takes to fight white collar crimes by sentencing the defendants accordingly (ArticlesBase, 2008).
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment