White-collar crime meaning :

White-collar crime refers to non-violent offenses committed by individuals or

organizations in a professional or business setting. Typical white-collar crimes
could include fraud, bribery, Ponzi schemes, insider trading, labour
racketeering, embezzlement, cybercrime, copyright infringement, money
laundering, identity theft, and forgery. E.g.: Nirav modi scam, Vijay Mallya
scam, Harshad Mehta scam etc.
White collar crime deviance meaning:
White-collar deviance entails all unethical practices including legally delineated
crimes that high-ranking workers commit in their work.
Official Deviance: Bureaucrat
The government of India has three organs, the legislative, the executive, and the
judiciary and the constitution provide separation of powers to each branch as
they perform their functions independently. The executive branch consisting of
ministers, bureaucrats, and the whole government machinery is expected to
implement the laws framed the legislative assemblies. The ultimate
responsibility for running the administration rests with the elected
representatives of the people which are the ministers. These ministers are
accountable to the legislatures which are also elected by the people.
Ministers are at the top of the hierarchy of the executive branch. The popular
case of corruption was the 2G spectrum scam which sent A. Raja, telecom
minister to jail along with another DMK law-maker. Sukhram was another
minister in the nineties in the same ministry to go to jail. Fodder scan in Bihar is
another scandal for which Laloo Yadav is being tried. But such kinds of
exposures and trials are rare in India, often only the smaller fishes get caught.
Causes of Deviance The reasons behind the leading of corruption are many
and complex. Some are given below:
1. Emergence of political elite who believes in interest-oriented rather than
nation oriented programs and policies.
2. Corruption is increasing in the society very rapidly because of the change in
the value system and ethical qualities of men. The old ideals of morality, service
and honesty are regarded as an achromatic.
 3. Very low tolerance capability of people towards corruption. The fully lack of
intense public outcry against corruption and the absence of strong public forum
to oppose corruption gives freedom to corruption to reign over people.
4. Increasing population, widespread illiteracy and the poor economic
infrastructure lead to endemic corruption in public life.
5. Low salaries of government officials compel them to resort to the road of
corruption. Graduates from IIMs with no experience draw a far handsome salary
than what government secretaries draw.
6. Complex procedures and laws alienate common people to ask for any help
from government.
7. Corruption is always on at its high level in election days. Big industrialists
fund politicians to meet high cost of election and ultimately to seek personal
favour. Bribery to politicians buys influence, and bribery by politicians buys
votes. In order to get elected, politicians bribe poor illiterate people, who are
slogging for two times meal.
Bureaucrats, as government officials or employees, can also engage in
various forms of deviance that fall under white-collar crime. Here are some
examples:
1. Embezzlement: Bureaucrats may misappropriate funds or assets entrusted to
them for personal gain. This can involve manipulating financial records,
diverting funds, or creating fraudulent transactions.
2. Bribery: Bureaucrats may accept bribes or kickbacks in exchange for providing
preferential treatment, influencing decisions, or granting favors. This can
undermine the integrity of public institutions and compromise the fairness of
decision-making processes.
3. Fraud: Bureaucrats may engage in fraudulent activities such as submitting false
claims, forging documents, or providing misleading information. This can occur
in areas like procurement, contracts, or financial reporting.
4. Abuse of power: Bureaucrats may misuse their authority for personal or
political gain. This can involve nepotism, favoritism, or using public resources
for private purposes.
5. Conflict of interest: Bureaucrats may have personal interests that conflict with
their official duties. This can lead to biased decision-making, favoring certain
individuals or organizations, or using insider information for personal gain.
6. Insider trading: Bureaucrats with access to non-public information may
engage in illegal trading activities to profit from that information. This can
involve buying or selling stocks, bonds, or other securities based on privileged
knowledge.
7. Money laundering: Bureaucrats may facilitate the process of making illegally
obtained money appear legitimate. This can involve creating complex financial
transactions or using shell companies to disguise the source of funds.
8. Cybercrime: Bureaucrats may engage in computer-related offenses such as
hacking, identity theft, or unauthorized access to sensitive information. This can
compromise data security and privacy.
It is important to note that not all bureaucrats engage in deviant behavior, and
these examples are not exhaustive. However, these forms of deviance highlight
the potential risks and challenges associated with white-collar crime in
bureaucratic settings.

Deviance in Bureaucrat of India : Judicial Approach

While dealing with this issue the judiciary took even senior bureaucrats with
heavy hands. In A.Watiao v. State of Manipur, AIR 1996 SC 361 one senior
IAS officer serving under Government of Manipur was party to a conspiracy in
giving contract to the firm at an extremely exorbitant rate. The Special Judge,
Manipur sentenced him to pay a fine ofRs. 10,000/- and to imprisonment till the
rising of the court. The Guwahati High Court did not interfere with the order of
the Special Judge on appeal. On further appeal, the Apex Court maintained the
conviction of fine, but enhanced the sentence of imprisonment to six months.
The Supreme Court held that awarding sentence of imprisonment till the rising
of court is mockery of justice and that the lower court should have taken a
serious view of the matter instead of soft dealing when corruption of a
responsible Government Officer is involved.
In a landmark judgment of Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab,2006 (10)
SCR 197, Supreme Court of India has expressed that if an accused is a public
servant who has retired or ceased to be a public servant then to prosecute him
no sanction in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act is necessary. Similarly, in
Subramaniam Swami v. Manmohan Singh,AIR 2007 SC 18, it has been held
by the court that when an offence is committed by a public servant and he
resigns before cognizance is taken by the court, no prior sanction is needed. A.
Raja, Union Tele-com Minister resigned from the post of Minister in 2G
Spectrum Scam but continued to be a member of Parliament. It was held by the
Court that no sanction is required under section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988.
Similarly, in K. Ponnuswamy v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 2001 SC 2464 the
accused was employed as Lecturer in Government Arts College earning a small
salary. His wife had only small agricultural income. The financial condition of
the family was such that the accused could not even re-pay his small debts.
Later the accused was elected as M.L.A. and became Deputy Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly and thereafter Minister of Education to the Government
of Tamil Nadu. During the "check period" when the accused became a minister,
he acquired in his name and in the names of members of his family pecuniary
resources and property disproportionate to his known source of income. The
Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section
13(2) of the 6 Prevention of Corruption Act and family members of the accused
were convicted under Section 109, I.P.C. and under Section 13(1) (e) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial court, after
convicting the accused directed confiscation of the pecuniary resources and
properties to the extent of Rs. 77,49,337.37. On appeal, the High Court
acquitted the family members of the accused, but confirmed the conviction of
the accused person. The High Court maintained the order of confiscation in
respect of the assets of the accused and his wife and daughter.
On further appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court
and the High Court by holding that the prosecution has established by legal
evidence that money was transferred by the accused to his wife and daughter
through his nephew. Since it was not proved on behalf of the defense that the
gifts were made by the nephew of the accused to the wife and daughter of the
accused before the check period and after the check period, the Trial Court and
the High Court were right in not believing the case of gifts made out of sudden
burst of love and affection during the check period when the accused was
minister.