101 BRITISH WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINALS
G. E. Levens
It would be quite normal for an author, as he embarks upon a reading carrying a title such as this, to plunge immediately into the currents of pedantry and attempt a rigid definition of two terms which convey a recognizable, but perhaps evaluative, meaning to most of his readers: "white-collar crime" and "white-collar criminals." I will largely shirk this task by pointing to the difficulties of definition and suggesting a way they may be avoided.
Academic discussion of white-collar crime has generally been channeled along two different and mutually confusing avenues: the first being one in which "white collar" is attributable to the offender, and the second in which it refers to the offense. The snag, quite obviously, is that a white- collar offender can commit both white-collar offenses (such as business crimes, contraventions of trade regulations, embezzlement, fraudulent conversion of money or property, etc.) and offenses which we might call "ordinary" (such as sex offenses, motoring offenses, simple larceny, and so on). On the other hand, a number of white-collar offenses can equally____________________