The new trend of people who commit white collar crimes

On Behalf of | Jul 29, 2020 | White Collar Crimes |

When people in Arkansas hear of someone in being charged with a crime, they might make snap judgments about that person. However, those same snap judgments may not exist when it comes to learning the identity of those accused of white collar crimes.

According to Forbes, here is some information about the latest trend of people who are committing white collar crimes.

They engage in atypical white collar crimes

Many times, white collar crimes seem to be mainly embezzlement, Ponzi schemes or some sort of securities fraud. If successfully executed, those wrongdoings come with great financial reward for the perpetrator. Therefore, they all have greed as the primary motivating factor.

However, there is a new wave of white collar crimes that depart from that traditional model. They also unite by a new motivation which is that of entitlement. This is usually accompanied by a lack of oversight. When conditions line up perfectly, even those people who may not have otherwise engaged in criminal activity find the temptation too strong to resist.

They are in a position of trust

Many of the people making recent headlines for white collar crimes are people we admire. They worked hard and achieved many gains in their professional lives which brought them to a position of power and authority. One recent scandal that demonstrates this well is Operation Varsity Blues, where parents paid off college coaches so their children could attend prestigious universities. While the parents have great wealth, the coaches did not have access to large sums of money but did have great trust.

Many of the mothers and fathers were executives, prominent business people or associated with the entertainment industry. Due to the coaches’ influence and command at a large number of schools, coaches admitted many teens who not only failed to demonstrate exceptional athletic prowess, but did not even know how to play the particular sport for which the coach recruited the student. This was possible since the coaches had high positions of trust but had zero or little accountability for their admissions decisions.