Corporate crime: a logical misconception, but with one analytical point
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2018-0137 |
| Pages | 1213-1220 |
| Date | 18 May 2020 |
| Published date | 18 May 2020 |
| Author | Tage Alalehto |
| Subject Matter | Financial crime,Financial risk/company failure |
Corporate crime: a logical
misconception, but with one
analytical point
Tage Alalehto
Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose –In 1988, Donald Cressey publisheda previously overlooked article. According to Cressey, there
was a lack in the agenda of corporate crime research concerning theory and conceptual precision of what
exactly the scientific object was and how it could reinforce the understanding of white-collar criminality.
Cressey stated the idea that a fictitious person,such as a corporation, upon which were bestowed properties
such as a will of its own (intentions and motivations)and a consciousness to act morallyand ethically have a
responsibilityto follow the order of law, leds to a fundamental theoretical problemin terms of discovering the
causes of crimescommitted by such a fictitious person. I followthis line of thought about the arguments made
by representatives of corporate crime. Specifically, I follow the concept of “decoupling,”by using various
techniques of formal logic.The conclusion is that the concept of corporate crime is a logical contradiction(an
eternal false statement), but the research has one analytical point which must be incorporated into the
research of white-collar criminality: how structural conditions of a corporation’s policy and strategy
“produce”or influence the individualswithin the corporation to make decisions. The aim of the paper is to
prove on logical grounds that the direction of research on corporate crime is on the wrongtrack to find the
truth (basicelements and mechanisms) about white-collarcrime.
Design/methodology/approach –Using formallogic, specifically modal logic.
Findings –The concept“corporate crime”is a logical contradiction.
Research limitations/implications –Concerning the conclusion, the implications has to be that
corporatecrime is a misleading concept in the research agenda of white-collarcrime.
Practical implications –The authors have to reconsider the whole research field of corporate crime research.
Originality/value –To best of my knowledge, no one has before done a critic of corporate crime concept
by formal logic.
Keywords Corporate crime, Formal logic, Logical contradiction
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In 1988, Donald Cressey (1989) published a previously overlooked article. Cressey argued
that there was a poverty in the research of corporate crime concerning theory and
conceptual precision of whatexactly the scientific object was and how it could reinforce our
understanding ofthis type of criminality.
According to Cressey, it was obvious that previous research treated a corporation as a
natural person (rather than a fictitious person), which could think and act because it had
a will of its own (intentions and motivations).Thus, the corporation was assumed to have a
consciousness and an ability to act morally and ethically given the principles of the social
contract in the same way as a physical individual. So, if the corporation did something
illegal it could be accused of being an offenderacting immorally in relation to the law of the
contextual society. However, this basic philosophical assumption led to one fundamental
theoretical problem for the research of corporate crime, i.e. “[...] the impossible task of
One analytical
point
1213
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.27 No. 4, 2020
pp. 1213-1220
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-12-2018-0137
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-0790.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial