Crimes of the Powerful and Elite Deviance
Crimes of the Powerful: An Introduction
Critical criminologists have sought to broaden the traditional definition of crime, which often emphasizes street, property, or 'stranger' crimes. Different strands of critical criminology have focused on examining crimes and harms committed not by society’s most marginalized groups, but by those with considerable social, economic, or political power. ''The crimes of the powerful'' represent a conceptual category in criminology that highlights specific characteristics of offenses committed by individuals or entities with significant authority. First, this term involves the correlation, interconnection, and entanglement of offenses committed by individuals with considerable authority, whose power often serves as a critical enabler for these crimes. Second, these offenses rarely occur in isolation. Instead, they frequently form networks of interconnected crimes, where one illegal activity may rely on or facilitate another. Third, power is not confined to public authority; therefore, crimes of the powerful are not restricted to state actors and governmental misconduct but also extend to the private sector and illegal business activities, particularly those linked to organized crime. These offenses encompass a broad spectrum of crimes that traditional positivist criminology has often failed to systematically study or link together. (Vidali et al., 2019). Frank Pearce was the first scholar to use the term 'crimes of the powerful' in a book with the same title and it has only recently entered mainstream discourse (Friedrichs, 2015).
Two prominent figures in the discussion of crimes of the powerful were Edwin Sutherland and William Chambliss. Sutherland, through his theoretical framework and critique of crime as either an inherent human trait or a social condition, presented a critical perspective on the misuse of power in criminal activity. He emphasized that crimes of the powerful are often hidden in plain sight, shielded by influence and authority. This perspective challenged traditional criminological theories that focused primarily on street crime and lower-class offenders (Vasilantonopoulou,2016). Crimes of the powerful represent a distinct category in criminology, primarily involving financial offenses often categorized as serious economic crimes (Vidali, 2017). These offenses, such as corporate fraud and embezzlement, frequently cause more harm than conventional crimes but receive comparatively less attention. These crimes underscore the relationship between power and criminal behavior, demonstrating how offenders leverage their authority (Chambliss, 2004). A central characteristic of these crimes is the abuse of power, often in the form of bribery and corruption (Kasapoglou, 2014). Chambliss reached a conclusion similar to Sutherland's, arguing that crime is not confined to lower social classes but is also perpetrated by the economic elite (Vasilantonopoulou, 2014). His work highlighted the selective enforcement of laws, where the crimes of the wealthy are often overlooked or treated with leniency compared to those committed by marginalized groups.
Crimes of the powerful encompass a range of criminal behaviors that are often interconnected and mutually reinforcing (Chambliss, 2004). Edwin Sutherland, a prominent figure in criminology, best known for his theory of differential association, which suggests that criminal behavior is learned through social interactions. He also introduced the concept of white-collar crime, defining it as "crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of their occupation"(Sutherland, 1940). Sutherland (1945) laid the foundation for studying these crimes by distinguishing between offenses committed by the powerful and those carried out by corporations or the state (Barak, 2018). Power, whether in the public or private sector, extends to criminality associated with legitimate business operations or organized crime (Ruggiero, 2017). These crimes are often hidden from public view or downplayed due to the perpetrators’ influence and control over societal structures. As a result, the mechanisms of power that enable these offenses are often overlooked or normalized in everyday life.
These criminal acts are typically perpetrated by high-ranking individuals in business and government, often causing significant social harm while furthering their financial or political interests (Aloskofis, 2019). They include offenses such as fraud, embezzlement, bribery, tax evasion, and money laundering (Sutherland, 1945). Viewed as a form of structural violence, these crimes are deeply embedded in social systems, reinforcing power imbalances and perpetuating social injustice (Chouliaras, 2019). The perpetrators' access to power enables them to violate legal norms while shaping legislation to protect themselves from legal repercussions (Vidali, 2019). Despite the immense societal harm these crimes cause, perpetrators rarely face substantial legal consequences. When they do, the penalties are often minor compared to the severity of the offenses (Chouliaras, 2019). Their political and social connections, along with economic influence, allow them to manipulate legal frameworks, avoiding punishment or receiving only mild moral and political reproach (Aloskofis, 2019; Chouliaras, 2019). The intertwining of political and economic interests complicates prosecution, reinforcing a cycle of impunity (Vasilantonopoulou, 2016).
The prevailing view that crime arises from the interaction between cultural production, ideological constructs, and political economy has broadened the criminological understanding of crime, emphasizing its political dimensions. This perspective highlights the central role of the state, integrating issues such as power, legitimacy, hegemony, governance, social order, and change. Consequently, criminology has shifted beyond its traditional focus on the "criminal individual" to critically engage with the state. The state is now studied from two perspectives: as an institution enforcing legal order (a regulator of crime) and as an entity generating criminal activity (a producer of crime) (Barak, 1990; Coleman & Sim, 2006). This shift in criminological thought, from legitimizing state power to critically examining it, is largely attributed to the influence of Neo-Marxist perspectives within critical criminology. In the 1970s, Frank Pearce sought to establish early critical criminology findings on corporate and organized crime. He noted the underdeveloped research on the state, its institutions, and the actions of the ruling class within criminology and sociology (Pearce, 1970).
William Chambliss, a prominent critical criminologist, provided a vital framework for understanding social conflicts and their relationship to political structures. He argued that social conflicts arise from political and economic disparities, with the law serving as a tool to manage these conflicts while maintaining the legitimacy of the system, typically favoring the ruling class (Chambliss, 1988). Chambliss distinguished between "law in theory" and "law in practice," asserting that criminal law is shaped by individuals' material conditions (Vasilantonopoulou, 2014), emphasizing that crime and criminal law are intimately tied to class power. Society consists of groups with varying living conditions, and the extent to which the law reflects a neutral legal framework depends on each group's political and economic standing, with powerful groups able to manipulate laws for their own benefit (Vasilantonopoulou, 2014). In crimes committed by the powerful, offenders often violate laws without facing consequences, and they may even change laws to serve their interests (Chambliss, 1979). Political will and immunity from punishment—privileges of the ruling class—are decisive in shaping and enforcing legal norms (Vidali, 2013). Those committing such offenses often hold socio-political control, allowing them to influence legal and regulatory frameworks while ensuring their own protection from prosecution.
Chambliss further argued that the lack of accountability for the powerful arises from networks of influence and shared interests among business elites, state officials, and political authorities. These groups form symbiotic relationships, supported by bureaucracy and social stratification, which allow offenders to maintain their status and evade legal repercussions. Moreover, state involvement in public administration often aligns with their goals (Lazos, 2007). Through his research, Chambliss identified an interdependent relationship between legal and illegal enterprises and law enforcement agencies, illustrating how crime and the state interact through a dialectical process in which government officials shape and even restructure criminal activities. Through his research, Chambliss identified an interdependent relationship between legal and illegal enterprises and law enforcement agencies, illustrating how crime and the state interact through a dialectical process in which government officials shape and even restructure criminal activities. This interdependence is significant because it highlights how legal and illegal systems often feed into one another, creating a cycle of corruption and exploitation. Government officials, in shaping these criminal activities, may turn a blind eye to certain crimes or even support illegal enterprises that align with political or economic interests. This dynamic not only undermines the integrity of law enforcement but also perpetuates social inequalities, as marginalized communities often bear the brunt of the state’s selective enforcement, while the powerful remain insulated from full accountability (Vidali, 2013). Finally, one of the major challenges in addressing crimes of the powerful is the systemic nature of their concealment and the barriers that obstruct justice. The difficulty in detecting and prosecuting these crimes stems largely from media concealment, selective enforcement of justice, and the misconception that socio-political elites act as 'guardians' of the law (Lazos, 2007).
Crimes of the Powerful in a Globalized Economy
While globalization is often discussed from various perspectives in criminology, the concept of 'crimes of the powerful' remains less recognized by governments, policymakers, and mainstream academics. Unlike traditional crimes committed by individuals, crimes of the powerful in the 21st century are primarily linked to economic structures, capital accumulation, and systemic exploitation. These crimes are deeply embedded in institutionalized political and economic frameworks that perpetuate harm, victimization, and social injustice. Within the global capitalist system, such violations have become routine, often viewed as mere 'costs of doing business' or dismissed as 'collateral damage.' As a result, corporate and state actors continue to exploit legal loopholes, evade accountability, and perpetuate economic and social inequalities, further entrenching systemic injustice (Barak, 2015). For example, major oil companies have repeatedly been fined for environmental disasters—such as BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010—yet they continue to operate with minimal long-term consequences, prioritizing profits over environmental and social responsibility. The continued devastation of the Gulf of Mexico underscores the urgency of addressing corporate impunity and its detrimental effects on both ecosystems and local communities. Fourteen years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the region’s wildlife and ecosystems remain in a state of crisis, with recovery still elusive. New scientific findings reveal even more disturbing evidence of the spill's long-lasting damage, confirming that the ecological toll is far worse than originally understood. Yet, despite this ongoing catastrophe, proposals to increase offshore drilling and expand oil extraction in public lands and waters are still on the table. This lack of accountability reflects a failure to learn the lessons of Deepwater Horizon, reinforcing the tragic reality that corporate greed continues to trump environmental preservation and long-term responsibility (Frontier Group, 2024).
As a result, these transgressions frequently escape both criminalization and social stigma, despite their significant impact. Crimes committed by those in power are often legitimized through alliances, negotiations, and justifications that dilute moral objections to their actions (Carson, 1979; Prins, 2014; Ruggiero, 2013). Legal and ideological responses from state actors and defenders of capitalist interests further contribute to the normalization of these offenses. Historically, state enforcement agencies have prioritized economic stability and capital accumulation over criminal accountability, a pattern that has persisted since the rise of capitalism in the late 16th to early 17th century (Barak, 2015).
One significant example illustrates this trend: the exploitative labor practices of 19th-century English manufacturers and the widespread financial fraud that contributed to the 2008 global financial crisis. Despite existing laws to prevent such violations, both cases show how powerful economic actors evade legal consequences through systemic protections. In 19th-century England, labor laws existed to prevent inhumane working conditions, yet factory workers, including children, faced extreme exploitation. In cities like Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, employees endured physical punishment, malnutrition, and grueling 18-hour workdays. Rather than enforcing labor protections, the state often granted immunity to major manufacturers, enabling their routine violations with impunity (Harvey, 2014).
Similarly, in the early 2000s, financial institutions in the U.S. and other global markets engaged in large-scale securities fraud, contributing to the 2008 financial crisis. Despite existing laws designed to protect consumers and investors, major financial firms sold toxic securities under the guise of legitimate investments. These systemic violations led to the collapse of financial markets, the loss of trillions of dollars, and widespread economic devastation affecting millions. However, no major financial institution or executive faced criminal prosecution (Barak, 2015). Both cases demonstrate how economic stability, capital growth, and national prosperity are often prioritized over criminal accountability. The legal and social frameworks that protect these offenses reflect a broader system in which the capitalist state controls the legitimate use of force and law while also dictating financial regulation, taxation, and wealth distribution. With the rise of global capitalism, state power has become increasingly intertwined with multinational corporate interests, making it more challenging to hold the powerful accountable (Barak, 2015).
Crimes of the powerful often involve well-established private and public entities violating the rights of workers, consumers, taxpayers, and entire communities. These offenses range from financial misconduct and labor exploitation to environmental destruction and political corruption. They also include extreme human rights violations, such as torture, genocide, and war crimes, recognized internationally as crimes against humanity and threats to global peace. Ultimately, these transgressions span a spectrum of harmful activities, including illegal actions, unethical omissions, and systemic abuses that escape legal consequences due to the structures of power that protect them (Barak, 2015).
The view of the crimes of the powerful as a form of structural violence represents a crucial conceptual approach, introduced by Johan Galtung within his phenomenological analysis of violence. Galtung distinguished between personal (direct) violence and structural (indirect) violence, based on whether a physical subject is involved. In the first case, the consequences of violence are experienced directly by the victims, and it is linked to specific individuals. In the second case, violence becomes embedded in social structures, manifesting as inequality in power and affecting access to resources and opportunities within society (Galtung, 1969). In structural violence, instead of a clear causal relationship between subject and object of violence, social injustice arises.
This conceptualization of the crimes of the powerful highlights the challenge of adequately addressing them through the criminal justice system. Criminal law primarily focuses on interpersonal or direct violence, limiting its ability to effectively tackle crimes that embody structural violence. This limitation stems from the focus of the criminal process on determining the responsibility of individual actors, something that is often difficult to achieve in cases of structural violence (Baratta, 2004). Furthermore, the failure of criminal law to address crimes committed by the powerful undermines the protection of human rights, which are seen as the normative expression of the real needs of individuals and social groups. From this perspective, Baratta argues that human rights, especially for vulnerable social groups, face dual pressure: on the one hand, from structural violence that reinforces inequalities, and on the other hand, from institutional violence expressed through the imposition of criminal sanctions (Baratta, 2004).
Elite Deviance
As Lynch & Michalowski (2006) clearly state, the crimes of the powerful refer to practices that, despite posing serious risks to collective well-being, fall outside the scope of criminal law institutionally, regardless of the harm they cause. Furthermore, corporate and state crimes, arising from state actions, should be subject to criminal prosecution in accordance with the extent of the social harm they cause. These behaviors, which are mainly found in the fields of politics and economics, may never surface or may be concealed for extended periods, even though they harm public health, economic prosperity, and public safety (Chouliaras, 2019). As Vasilantonopoulou (2016) highlights, in the context of crimes committed by the powerful, the perpetrators possess greater economic power compared to their victims, due to both their institutional positions and the opportunities available to them within the modern globalized social environment. The criminal activities of the powerful in the state and economy affect critical legal goods essential for social cohesion and democracy, resulting in harm to a large part of society (Aloskoufis, 2019). This harm becomes a fundamental element of elite deviance.
The concept of elite deviance, which encompasses unethical or illegal behaviors by individuals in positions of power and privilege, has garnered increasing attention in sociological and criminological discourse. This phenomenon challenges traditional notions of deviance, which often focus on marginalized groups, by highlighting the crucial gap in understanding how elites navigate moral and legal boundaries. One foundational work in this field is Simon's The Nature of Elite Deviance, published in 1982, which outlines the characteristics and consequences of deviant behavior among elites. Simon argues that elite deviance is frequently normalized within social and institutional structures that not only permit but sometimes even encourage such behaviors. This normalization is facilitated by a culture of impunity, where elites are less likely to face consequences for their actions compared to lower socioeconomic groups, perpetuating systemic and entrenched deviance (Simon, 2018).
Holmqvist's study of elite communities in Sweden further examines how social deviance can jeopardize elite status. While elites typically strive to accumulate social and cultural capital, engaging in deviant behavior can undermine their societal standing and threaten their privileged position. This tension underscores the precarious nature of elite identity, which often depends on public perception and social acceptance (Holmqvist, 2021). The fear of status desecration compels elites to employ various strategies to manage their reputation, which can lead to further deviant behaviors.
The consequences of elite deviance extend beyond individual actions and have broader social implications. Bichler et al. (2014) discuss corporate deviance, where cohesive elite groups within corporations develop a feudal-like structure that marginalizes non-elites. This concentration of power can lead to systemic abuses and a lack of accountability, as corporate elites prioritize profit over ethical considerations. Such corporate cultures perpetuate deviance by fostering an environment where unethical behavior is normalized, hierarchical power structures protect those in control, and dissent is suppressed through fear of retaliation or loss of career opportunities, ultimately enabling ongoing abuses that harm employees, consumers, and the broader society. Shiffer-Sebba’s analysis of tax evasion among American elites indicates that communities with strong civic organizations are paradoxically more likely to harbor tax evaders, suggesting that such organizations may reinforce insular behaviors that promote deviance. This inward-looking dynamic, exacerbated by income inequality, creates an environment where elite individuals feel justified in their deviant actions, seeing themselves as separate from the social norms governing the general population (Shiffer-Sebba, 2024).
Additionally, elite deviance is closely linked to dissent in political contexts. Murray et al. (2008) highlight how dissenting voices within elite circles can be labeled as deviant, especially during national crises, which restricts legitimate opposition and reinforces a monolithic narrative that serves elite interests. This marginalization of dissent illustrates the mechanisms through which elite deviance is maintained, with those challenging the status quo often labeled as deviants.
The psychological dimensions of elite deviance are crucial to understanding its persistence. Research by Luthar and Becker on affluent youth reveals that wealth pressures can lead to distress and maladaptive behaviors, including substance abuse and deviance. Elites are not immune to the psychological costs of their status, which can manifest in socially deviant behaviors (Luthar & Becker, 2002; Luthar, 2003). Knottnerus et al. (2006) argue that elite deviance is often ritualized within corporate cultures, leading to a normalization of unethical practices such that this ritualization creates an environment where deviance is accepted and even expected, further embedding such behaviors within institutions meant to uphold societal values. Finally, the role of the media in shaping perceptions of elite deviance cannot be ignored.
Ginosar and Konovalov discuss how media representations often reflect elite-driven narratives that obscure the reality of deviance among powerful individuals, perpetuating a cycle of accountability avoidance (Ginosar & Konovalov, 2015). Within deviance theory, Simon (2006) introduces two key elements: the strong social reaction and the violation of accepted behavioral norms. Elite deviance is characterized by several key patterns. First, perpetrators often come from upper social strata or act on behalf of powerful individuals or institutions. Second, their actions fall into varying legal classifications—some are explicitly criminal, while others violate civil laws or are merely considered unethical, such as when a U.S. president is publicly exposed for lying. Third, the motives behind elite deviance can differ; some acts are committed for personal financial gain, while others serve to enhance the power and influence of corporations or elite-controlled entities. Fourth, the risks and sanctions associated with these acts are relatively low, as detection is less likely, and penalties, when enforced, tend to be much milder compared to those imposed on common criminals. Fifth, the social harm caused by elite deviance is substantial, affecting public safety, health, and economic well-being. Lastly, these acts are often concealed for extended periods and, in many cases, may never come to light (Simon, 2006).
Simon (2006) argues that elite deviance can cause harm in three distinct categories: physical harm, economic harm, and moral harm. Physical harm includes bodily injury, illness, or death. Economic harm encompasses fraud, theft, or any form of deceit aimed at extracting capital from investors or consumers without delivering corresponding goods or services. Moral harm arises from elite deviance setting a negative example, thereby reinforcing deviant behavior within the broader society. It is important to note that, regardless of the harm their actions cause, the powerful do not perceive themselves as criminals because they justify their actions as serving organizational goals. From this perspective, they fail to acknowledge the deviant nature of their actions(Ermann & Lundman, 2002).
In their 2014 study, Michel, Heide, and Cochran examined the impact of awareness regarding elite deviance, particularly concerning white-collar crime, on perceptions of its severity and appropriate punishment levels. They found partial support for their hypotheses, with the more informed individuals tending to view white-collar crime as a serious issue and favoring stricter penalties for offenders. However, unexpected results emerged, such as greater tolerance for white-collar offenders among those using the internet as their primary source of information, and the lack of significant relationships between demographic factors (such as race, education, and religion) and attitudes towards elite deviance. The study also revealed that individuals with right-wing political views were more lenient toward white-collar offenders, possibly due to cognitive dissonance between their support for capitalism and the harm caused by corporate crimes.
Conclusion: The Enduring Challenge of Crimes of the Powerful
The interrelation between corruption, economic crime, and organized crime has become central to contemporary political discourse and a focal point of analysis in various academic fields. A key concept that emerges from this discourse is the notion of crimes of the powerful, which includes elite deviance and underscores the significant social, political, and economic harm inflicted by individuals and organizations in positions of power. These crimes are often deeply entrenched within societal structures, shielded by legal and political systems that enable elites to evade justice despite the harmful consequences of their actions. This systemic protection, coupled with the normalization of such behaviors and a pervasive culture of impunity, perpetuates a cycle of inequality and structural violence, making it increasingly difficult to hold perpetrators accountable. Furthermore, the intertwining of economic, political, and social interests—particularly within a globalized capitalist system—compounds the challenges in addressing these offenses. Despite these complexities, it is crucial to recognize such issues as criminal phenomena, the outcomes of social interactions that have been legally defined and classified as crimes, albeit often criminalized selectively. This selective criminalization carries broader implications, extending beyond individual offenders to shape systemic patterns of injustice.
References
Greek Sources
Aloskofis, O. (2019). Η κοινωνική έρευνα της εγκληματικότητας των ισχυρών [The social research of the criminality of the powerful]. In Vidali, S., Koulouris, N., & Papacharalambous, Ch. (Eds.), Εγκλήματα των ισχυρών. Διαφθορά, οικονομικό και οργανωμένο έγκλημα [Crimes of the powerful:
Corruption, economic and organized crime] (pp. 87–109). Ελληνικό Ανοικτό Πανεπιστήμιο.
Chouliaras, A. (2019). Εγκληματικότητα των ισχυρών: Εγκληματολογική θεωρία και ποινική προβληματική [The criminality of the powerful: Criminological theory and penal issues]. In Vidali, S., Koulouris, N., & Papacharalambous, Ch. (Eds.), Εγκλήματα των ισχυρών. Διαφθορά, οικονομικό και οργανωμένο έγκλημα [Crimes of the powerful: Corruption, economic and organized crime] (pp. 63–85). Ελληνικό Ανοικτό Πανεπιστήμιο.
Kasapoglou, A (2014). Οι συνέπειες των ποινών κατά της ελευθερίας στην κοινωνική ταυτότητα κρατουμένων μεσοαστικής προέλευσης που έχουν διαπράξει σοβαρά οικονομικά εγκλήματα [The consequences of custodial sentences on the social identity of middle-class prisoners who have committed serious economic crimes] (Doctoral dissertation, Δημοκρίτειο Πανεπιστήμιο). https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/34794
Lazos, G. (2007). Κριτική Εγκληματολογία [Critical criminology]. Νομική Βιβλιοθήκη.
Vasilantonopoulou, V. (2012). Το έγκλημα του λευκού περιλαιμίου από εγκληματολογική και θυματολογική σκοπιά [White-collar crime from a criminological and victimological perspective]. Κόρινθος.
Vasilantonopoulou, V. (2014). «Λευκά κολάρα» και οικονομικό έγκλημα. Κοινωνική βλάβη και αντεγκληματική πολιτική [“White collars” and economic crime: Social harm and criminal policy]. Π. Ν. Σάκκουλας.
Vasilantonopoulou, V. (2016). Ποιοι είναι οι «εγκληματίες» στην εποχή μας- Η διαχρονική απάντηση [Who are the “criminals” in our time? The diachronic response]. In Gasparinatou, M. (Ed.), Έγκλημα και ποινική καταστολή σε εποχή κρίσης. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή Νέστορα Κουράκη [Crime and criminal repression in times of crisis: Honorary volume for Professor Nestoras Kourakis] (pp. 977–1009). Αντ. Ν. Σάκκουλας.
Vidali, S., Koulouris, N. K., & Papacharalambous, C. (Eds.). (2019). Eγκλήματα των ισχυρών: Διαφθορά, οικονομικό και οργανωμένο έγκλημα [Crimes of the powerful: Corruption, economic and organized crime]. Εκδόσεις ΕΑΠ.
Vidali, S. (2017). Πέρα από τα όρια: Η Αντεγκληματική Πολιτική σήμερα [Beyond the limits: Criminal policy today]. Νομική Βιβλιοθήκη.
Vidali, S. (2013). Εισαγωγή στην Εγκληματολογία [Introduction to criminology]. Νομική Βιβλιοθήκη.
English Sources
Barak, G. (2015). The crimes of the powerful and the globalization of crime. Revista Brasileira de Direito, 11, 104–114. https://doi.org/10.18256/2238-0604/revistadedireito.v11n2p104-114
Baratta, A. (2004). Derechos humanos: entre violencia estructural y violencia penal. Por la pacificación de los conflictos violentos. In A. Baratta, Criminología y Sistema Penal. Compilación in memoriam (pp. 340-343). Editorial B de F, Montevideo - Buenos Aires.
Bichler, G., Schoepfer, A., & Bush, S. (2014). White collars and black ties. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214553379
Carson, W. I. (1979). The conventionalization of early factory crime. International Journal for the Sociology of Law, 7, 37–60.
Chambliss, W. J. (2004). On the symbiosis between criminal law and criminal behavior. Criminology, 42(2), 241–252.
Ermann, D., & Lundman, R. (Eds.). (2002). Corporate and governmental deviance: Problems of organizational behavior in contemporary society (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1978).
Friedrichs, D. (2015). Crimes of the powerful and the definition of crime. In G. Barak (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of the crimes of the powerful (chapter 3). London: Routledge.
Frontier Group. (2024, October 22). The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is still wreaking havoc on the Gulf of Mexico. Frontier Group. https://frontiergroup.org/resources/the-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-is-still-wreaking-havoc-on-the-gulf-of-mexico/
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6, 170–171.
Ginosar, A., & Konovalov, I. (2015). Patriotism on the internet: Journalists’ behavior and user comments. Media, War & Conflict, 8(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635215607813
Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. Oxford University Press.
Holmqvist, M. (2021). Consecrating and desecrating elite communities: Fearing and dealing with social deviance in Sweden’s wealthiest neighborhood. Cultural Sociology, 16(3), 358–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211053172
Knottnerus, J., Ulsperger, J., Cummins, S., & Osteen, E. (2006). Exposing Enron: Media representations of ritualized deviance in corporate culture. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, 2(2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659006065405
Luthar, S. (2003). The culture of affluence: Psychological costs of material wealth. Child Development, 74(6), 1581–1593. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00625.x
Lynch, M., & Michalowski, R. (2006). Crime and the state. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.), The Sage Dictionary of Criminology (2nd ed., pp. 81-82). Sage.
Michel, C., Heide, K., & Cochran, J. (2014). The consequences of knowledge about elite deviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 10.1007/s12103-014-9285-z.
Murray, C., Parry, K., Robinson, P., & Goddard, P. (2008). Reporting dissent in wartime. European Journal of Communication, 23(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323107085836
Prins, N. (2014). All the presidents’ bankers: The hidden alliances that drive American power. Nation Books.
Ruggiero, V. (2017). Dirty money: On financial delinquency. Oxford University Press.
Shiffer-Sebba, D. (2024). Antisocial capital: Community cohesion and tax avoidance among American elites. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231241250188
Simon, D. (2006). Elite deviance (8th ed.). Pearson. (Original work published 1982).
Simon, D. (2018). Elite deviance (11th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162584
Sutherland, Edwin H. (1940) ‘White-Collar Criminality’, American Sociological Review 5(February): 1-12.
Sutherland, E. H. (1945) ‘Is ”White Collar Crime” Crime?’, American Sociological Review, 10, 132-139.
Visual Sources
Figure 1:The iSpot. (2019, May 6). Mirko Cresta illustration: Lies & corruption. The iSpot. https://www.theispot.com/whatsnew/2019/5/mirko-cresta-illustration-lies-corruption.htm
Figure 2:Lorenz, L. (n.d.). I always thought white-collar crime was done [Canvas print]. Condé Nast Store. https://condenaststore.com/featured/i-always-thought-white-collar-crime-was-done-lee-lorenz.html?product=poster
Figure 3:Kauzlarich, D., & Rothe, D. L. (2014). Crimes of the powerful. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 746-748). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_308
Figure 4:Kumar, K. S. (2024, July 18). A strategic blueprint on combating white collar crimes. Economic Times. https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/opinions/a-strategic-blueprint-on-combating-white-collar-crimes/111837578
Figure 5:The New York Times. (2018, April 22). Graft in South Africa: The people deserve better. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com
Figure 6:Vey, P. C. (n.d.). These new regulations will fundamentally change [Art print]. Condé Nast. Retrieved from https://condenaststore.com/featured/these-new-regulations-will-fundamentally-change-peter-c-vey.html
Figure 7:Wilson, P. R., & Braithwaite, J. (Eds.). (1978). Two faces of deviance: Crimes of the powerless and the powerful. Aldine Publishing.
In addition to their captivating personalities and stunning appearances, Ghaziabad Escorts possess a deep understanding of social etiquette.