This data collection, one of only a small number available on federal white collar crimes, focuses on white collar criminals and the nature of their offenses. The data contain information on the source of conviction, offense category, number of counts in the indictment, maximum prison time and maximum fine associated with the offense, the duration and geographic spread of the offense, number of participants, number of persons arrested, number of businesses indicted, and spouse's employment. The data are limited to crimes committed solely by convicted individuals and do not include defendants that are organizations or groups. The defendant's socioeconomic status is measured using the Duncan Index. Further information provided about the defendant includes age, sex, marital status, past criminal history, neighborhood environment, education, and employment history.

In Romania, ** percent of companies were victims of economic crime in 2018. Besides, the level of fraud reported by Romanian companies increased significantly in 2018 compared to 2016.

In 2023, when it came to white-collar crime German police had a clearance rate of **** percent. This was the lowest clearance rate since 2013.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study contains data from an on-line national survey of 2,050 respondents aged 18+. The data were collected to provide new policy-relevant evidence on the public's attitude towards white-collar and corporate frauds by asking questions about the public's willingness to pay for reducing white-collar crimes when provided information about the estimate of financial losses, context and seriousness. Further, the study quantifies public perceptions of seriousness link to specific policy preferences. This study includes one STATA data file: Formatted_WTP_Dataset_11-10-16.dta (138 variables, 2050 cases).

This study examined the criminal careers of 1,331 offenders convicted of white-collar crimes in the United States District Courts to assess the relative effectiveness of court-imposed prison sanctions in preventing or modifying future criminal behavior. The white-collar crime event that was the central focus of this study, the "criterion" offense, provided the standard point of entry for sample members. Researchers for this study supplemented the data collected by Wheeler et al. in their 1988 study (NATURE AND SANCTIONING OF WHITE COLLAR CRIME, 1976-1978: FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISTRICTS [ICPSR 8989]) with criminal history data subsequent to the criterion offense through to 1990. As in the 1988 study, white-collar crime was considered to include economic offenses committed through the use of some combination of fraud, deception, or collusion. Eight federal offenses were examined: antitrust, securities fraud, mail and wire fraud, false claims and statements, credit fraud, bank embezzlement, income tax fraud, and bribery. Arrests were chosen as the major measure of criminal conduct. The data contain information coded from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records ("rap sheets") for a set of offenders convicted of white-collar crimes in federal courts in fiscal years 1976 to 1978. The seven federal judicial districts from which the sample was drawn were central California, northern Georgia, northern Illinois, Maryland, southern New York, northern Texas, and western Washington. To correct for a bias that can be introduced when desistance from criminality is confused with the death of the offender, the researchers examined the National Death Index (NDI) data to identify offenders who had died between the date of sentencing for the criterion offense and when data collection began for this study in 1990. This data collection contains three types of records. The first record type (Part 1, Summary Data) contains summary and descriptive information about the offender's rap sheet as a whole. Variables include dates of first entry and last entry on the rap sheet, number of separate crimes on the rap sheet, whether the criterion crime was listed on the rap sheet, whether the rap sheet listed crimes prior to or subsequent to the criterion crime, and date of death of offender. The second and third record types are provided in one data file (Part 2, Event and Event Interim Data). The second record type contains information about each crime event on the rap sheet. Variables include custody status of offender at arrest, type of arresting agency, state of arrest, date of arrest, number of charges for each arrest, number of charges resulting in no formal charges filed, number of charges dismissed, number of charges for white-collar crimes, type of sanction, length of definite sentence, probation sentence, and suspended probation sentence, amount of fines, amount of court costs, and restitution ordered, first, second, and third offense charged, arrest and court disposition for each charge, and date of disposition. The third record type contains information about the interim period between events or between the final event and the end of the follow-up period. Variables include date of first, second, and third incarceration, date discharged or transferred from each incarceration, custody/supervision status at each incarceration, total number of prisons, jails, or other institutions resided in during the interval, final custody/supervision status and date discharged from incarceration for the interval, dates parole and probation started and expired, if parole or probation terms were changed or completed, amount of fines, court costs, and restitution paid, whether the conviction was overturned during the interval, and date the conviction was overturned. A single offender has as many of record types two and three as were needed to code the entire rap sheet.

In the fiscal year 2022/2023, the number of commercial crimes recorded by the South African police reached roughly *******, indicating a peak in the period under review. Since 2014/2015, white-collar crimes in the country have increased by about ** percent.

This statistic shows the share of organizations in Singapore that reported having experienced the following types of economic crimes. During the period surveyed, the most prevalent type of economic crime in Singapore was customer fraud, with ** percent of organizations reporting that they experienced this type of economic crime.

This project was undertaken to investigate organized criminal groups and the types of business activities in which they engage. The focus (unit of analysis) was on the organized groups rather than their individual members. The project assessed the needs of these groups in pursuing their goals and considered the operations used to implement or carry out their activities. The data collected address some of the following issues: (1) Are business operations (including daily operations, acquiring ownership, and structuring the organization) of organized criminal groups conducted in a manner paralleling legitimate business ventures? (2) Should investigating and prosecuting white-collar crime be a central way of proceeding against organized criminal groups? (3) What are the characteristics of the illegal activities of organized criminal groups? (4) In what ways are legal activities used by organized criminal groups to pursue income from illegal activities? (5) What is the purpose of involvement in legal activities for organized criminal groups? (6) What services are used by organized criminal groups to implement their activities? Variables include information on the offense actually charged against the criminal organization in the indictments or complaints, other illegal activities participated in by the organization, and the judgments against the organization requested by law enforcement agencies. These judgments fall into several categories: monetary relief (such as payment of costs of investigation and recovery of stolen or misappropriated funds), equitable relief (such as placing the business in receivership or establishment of a victim fund), restraints on actions (such as prohibiting participation in labor union activities or further criminal involvement), and forfeitures (such as forfeiting assets in pension funds or bank accounts). Other variables include the organization's participation in business-type activities--both illegal and legal, the organization's purpose for providing legal goods and services, the objectives of the organization, the market for the illegal goods and services provided by the organization, the organization's assets, the business services it requires, how it financially provides for its members, the methods it uses to acquire ownership, indicators of its ownership, and the nature of its victims.

The Corporate Financial Fraud project is a study of company and top-executive characteristics of firms that ultimately violated Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) financial accounting and securities fraud provisions compared to a sample of public companies that did not. The fraud firm sample was identified through systematic review of SEC accounting enforcement releases from 2005-2010, which included administrative and civil actions, and referrals for criminal prosecution that were identified through mentions in enforcement release, indictments, and news searches. The non-fraud firms were randomly selected from among nearly 10,000 US public companies censused and active during at least one year between 2005-2010 in Standard and Poor's Compustat data. The Company and Top-Executive (CEO) databases combine information from numerous publicly available sources, many in raw form that were hand-coded (e.g., for fraud firms: Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAER) enforcement releases, investigation summaries, SEC-filed complaints, litigation proceedings and case outcomes). Financial and structural information on companies for the year leading up to the financial fraud (or around year 2000 for non-fraud firms) was collected from Compustat financial statement data on Form 10-Ks, and supplemented by hand-collected data from original company 10-Ks, proxy statements, or other financial reports accessed via Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR), SEC's data-gathering search tool. For CEOs, data on personal background characteristics were collected from Execucomp and BoardEx databases, supplemented by hand-collection from proxy-statement biographies.

This statistic shows the share of organizations in Singapore that faced the following potential losses from their most disruptive fraud cases in 2020. During the period measured, ** percent of the organizations surveyed reported a potential loss of under * million U.S. dollars from the most disruptive fraud cases that they experienced.

The 2014 Survey of State Attorneys General (SAG) collected information on jurisdiction, sources and circumstances of case referrals, and the participation of attorneys general offices in federal or state white-collar crime task forces in 2014. White-collar crime was defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as: "any violation of law committed through non-violent means, involving lies, omissions, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of a position of trust, by an individual or organization for personal or organizational benefit." SAG sought to analyze how attorneys general offices as an organization in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories respond to white-collar offenses in their jurisdiction. BJS asked respondents to focus on the following criminal and civil offenses: bank fraud, consumer fraud, insurance fraud, medical fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, environmental offenses, false claims and statements, illegal payments to governmental officials (giving or receiving), unfair trade practices, and workplace-related offenses (e.g., unsafe working conditions). Variables included whether or not offices handled criminal or civil cases in the above categories, estimated number of cases in each category, and what types of criminal or civil sanctions were imposed on white-collar offenders. Researchers also assessed collaboration with partners outside of state attorneys offices, whether cases were referred for federal or local prosecution, and what circumstances lead to referring cases to state regulatory agencies. The extent to which state attorneys offices maintain white-collar crime data was also recorded.

The focus of this project was insider fraud -- crimes committed by the owners and operators of insurance companies that were established for the purposes of defrauding businesses and employees. The quantitative data for this collection were taken from a database maintained by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), an organization that represents state insurance departments collectively and acts as a clearinghouse for information obtained from individual departments. Created in 1988, the Regulatory Information Retrieval System (RIRS) database contains information on actions taken by state insurance departments against individuals and firms, including cease and desist orders, license revocations, fines, and penalties imposed. Data available for this project include a total of 123 actions taken against firms labeled as Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements or Multiple Employer Trusts (MEWA/MET) in the RIRS database. Variables available in this data collection include the date action was taken, state where action was taken, dollar amount of the penalty imposed in the action, and disposition for action taken.

The purpose of this study was to examine the crime of identity theft from the offenders' perspectives. The study employed a purposive sampling strategy. Researchers identified potential interview subjects by examining newspapers (using Lexis-Nexis), legal documents (using Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw), and United States Attorneys' Web sites for individuals charged with, indicted, and/or sentenced to prison for identity theft. Once this list was generated, researchers used the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Inmate Locator to determine if the individuals were currently housed in federal facilities. Researchers visited the facilities that housed the largest number of inmates on the list in each of the six regions in the United States as defined by the BOP (Western, North Central, South Central, North Eastern, Mid-Atlantic, and South Eastern) and solicited the inmates housed in these prisons. A total of 14 correctional facilities were visited and 65 individuals incarcerated for identity theft or identity theft related crimes were interviewed between March 2006 and February 2007. Researchers used semi-structured interviews to explore the offenders' decision-making processes. When possible, interviews were audio recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Part 1 (Quantitative Data) includes the demographic variables age, race, gender, number of children, highest level of education, and socioeconomic class while growing up. Other variables include prior arrests or convictions and offense type, prior drug use and if drug use contributed to identity theft, if employment facilitated identity theft, if they went to trial or plead to charges, and sentence length. Part 2 (Qualitative Data), includes demographic questions such as family situation while growing up, highest level of education, marital status, number of children, and employment status while committing identity theft crimes. Subjects were asked about prior criminal activity and drug use. Questions specific to identity theft include the age at which the person became involved in identity theft, how many identities he or she had stolen, if they had worked with other people to steal identities, why they had become involved in identity theft, the skills necessary to steal identities, and the perceived risks involved in identity theft.

The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the factors that contributed to the epidemic of fraud in the savings and loan ("thrift") industry, the role that white-collar crime played, and the government response to this crisis. The researchers sought to describe the magnitude, role, and nature of thrift crime, analyze factors related to the effectiveness of law enforcement control of savings and loan fraud, and develop the broader implications, from both a theoretical and a policy perspective. Data consist of statistics from various government agencies and focus on all types of thrift, i.e., solvent and insolvent, that fell under the jurisdiction of the Office of Thrift Supervision in Florida, Texas, and California and all insolvent thrifts under the control of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) in Washington, DC. The study focused on Texas, California, and Florida because of the high numbers of savings and loan failures, instances of fraud, and executives being indicted. However, as the study progressed, it became clear that the frauds and failures were nationwide, and while many of the crimes were located in these three states, the individuals involved may have been located elsewhere. Thus, the scope of the study was expanded to provide a national perspective. Parts 1 and 2, Case and Defendant Data, provide information from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys on referrals, investigations, and prosecutions of thrifts, banks, and other financial institutions. Part 1 consists of data about the cases that were prosecuted, the number of institutions victimized, the state in which these occurred, and the seriousness of the offense as indicated by the dollar loss and the number of victims. Part 2 provides information on the defendant's position in the institution (director, officer, employee, borrower, customer, developer, lawyer, or shareholder) and disposition (fines, restitution, prison, probation, or acquittal). The relevant variables associated with the Resolution Trust Corporation (Part 3, Institution Data) describe indictments, convictions, and sentences for all cases in the respective regions, organizational structure and behavior for a single institution, and the estimated loss to the institution. Variables coded are ownership type, charter, home loans, brokered deposits, net worth, number of referrals, number of individuals referred, assets and asset growth, ratio of direct investments to total assets, and total dollar losses due to fraud. For Parts 4 and 5, Texas and California Referral Data, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) provided data for what are called Category I referrals for California and Texas. Part 4 covers Category I referrals for Texas. Variables include the individual's position in the institution, the number of referrals, and the sum of dollar losses from all referrals. Part 5 measures the total dollar losses due to fraud in California, the total number of criminal referrals, and the number of individuals indicted.

The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the factors that contributed to the epidemic of fraud in the savings and loan ('thrift') industry, the role that white-collar crime played, and the government response to this crisis. The researchers sought to describe the magnitude, role, and nature of thrift crime, analyze factors related to the effectiveness of law enforcement control of savings and loan fraud, and develop the broader implications, from both a theoretical and a policy perspective. Data consist of statistics from various government agencies and focus on all types of thrift, i.e., solvent and insolvent, that fell under the jurisdiction of the Office of Thrift Supervision in Florida, Texas, and California and all insolvent thrifts under the control of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) in Washington, DC. The study focused on Texas, California, and Florida because of the high numbers of savings and loan failures, instances of fraud, and executives being indicted. However, as the study progressed, it became clear that the frauds and failures were nationwide, and while many of the crimes were located in these three states, the individuals involved may have been located elsewhere. Thus, the scope of the study was expanded to provide a national perspective. Parts 1 and 2, Case and Defendant Data, provide information from the Executive Office of United States Attorneys on referrals, investigations, and prosecutions of thrifts, banks, and other financial institutions. Part 1 consists of data about the cases that were prosecuted, the number of institutions victimized, the state in which these occurred, and the seriousness of the offense as indicated by the dollar loss and the number of victims. Part 2 provides information on the defendant's position in the institution (director, officer, employee, borrower, customer, developer, lawyer, or shareholder) and disposition (fines, restitution, prison, probation, or acquittal). The relevant variables associated with the Resolution Trust Corporation (Part 3, Institution Data) describe indictments, convictions, and sentences for all cases in the respective regions, organizational structure and behavior for a single institution, and the estimated loss to the institution. Variables coded are ownership type, charter, home loans, brokered deposits, net worth, number of referrals, number of individuals referred, assets and asset growth, ratio of direct investments to total assets, and total dollar losses due to fraud. For Parts 4 and 5, Texas and California Referral Data, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) provided data for what are called Category I referrals for California and Texas. Part 4 covers Category I referrals for Texas. Variables include the individual's position in the institution, the number of referrals, and the sum of dollar losses from all referrals. Part 5 measures the total dollar losses due to fraud in California, the to tal number of criminal referrals, and the number of individuals indicted.

In 2017, most of the Romanian companies surveyed suffered financial losses of up to *********** U.S. dollars as a result of economic crime. Only **** percent of respondents said they lost up to ********** U.S. dollars.

This statistic shows the breakdown of the ways that organizations in Singapore detected their most disruptive economic crime or fraud, as of 2018. During the period measured, 23 percent of the organizations surveyed detected their most disruptive economic crime or fraud through fraud risk management. In comparison, three percent of organizations stated that they discovered the crime through law enforcement.

This statistic shows the share of survey respondents in Malaysia who experienced the following types of fraud and/or economic crimes in their organization from 2015 to 2017. During the period surveyed, the most prevalent type of economic crime in organizations in Malaysia was business misconduct, with 45 percent of respondents having experienced such a crime in their organizations. This was followed closely by asset misappropriation at 41 percent. The least prevalent types of economic crimes in Malaysia were competition or anti-trust law infringement, intellectual property theft, and tax fraud. Two percent of respondents reported that their organization had experienced each of these crimes.

This project consists of secondary analysis material (syntax only, no data). The original study that the material pertains to examines two distinct but related types of corporate crime prevention and control mechanisms--one that rests on firm governance (specifically, the Board of Directors) and the other on formal legal interventions. Specifically, the study examines whether (ceteris paribus) firms with more gender diversity on their boards are less involved in offending than firms whose boards are less diverse and whether changes in board diversity over time affect firm offending patterns. Of additional interest is how firms respond to legal discovery and punishment. Do they change their governance structures (i.e., become more diverse) due to formal legal discovery? Are firms generally deterred from reoffending (recidivism) when discovered or does deterrence depend on the government's response to offenders? In particular, are certain regimes (criminal, civil, or regulatory) more successful at crime control than others? Relevant data are collected from a variety of secondary sources, including corporate financial, statistical, and governance information. These data are then linked to cases of corporate offending (accounting fraud, bribery, environmental and anti-competitive) for 3,327 US based companies between 1996 and 2013. Analyses-NIJ-5.21.2019--2-.do: Syntax (Stata) used to create type of offense count; domain of processing (civil, criminal, regulatory); offense distribution (by corporate year), female board membership (count and percent); Reoffending (by enforcement type and governance characteristics).