Corporate crime: a logical misconception, but with one analytical point

• In 1988, Donald Cressey published a previously overlooked article. According to Cressey, therewas a lack in the agenda of corporate crime research concerning theory and conceptual precision of whatexactly the scientific object was and how it could reinforce the understanding of white-collar criminality.Cressey stated the idea that afictitious person, such as a corporation, upon which were bestowed propertiessuch as a will of its own (intentions and motivations) and a consciousness to act morally and ethically have aresponsibility to follow the order of law, leds to a fundamental theoretical problem in terms of discovering thecauses of crimes committed by such afictitious person. I follow this line of thought about the arguments madeby representatives of corporate crime. Specifically, I follow the concept of“decoupling,”by using varioustechniques of formal logic. The conclusion is that the concept of corporate crime is a logical contradiction (aneternal false statement), but the research has one analytical point which must be incorporated into theresearch of white-collar criminality: how structural conditions of a corporation’s policy and strategy“produce”or influence the individuals within the corporation to make decisions. The aim of the paper is toprove on logical grounds that the direction of research on corporate crime is on the wrong track tofind thetruth (basic elements and mechanisms) about white-collar crime.

Nyckelord

Corporate crime

Formal logic

Logical contradiction

Sociology

sociologi

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)

art (ämneskategori)