IN TODAY鈥橲 hyper-competitive and hyper-connected world, crime is no longer the business of back alleys and dimly lit street corners. It is carried out in conference rooms, corner offices and digital spaces by those dressed in crisp suits and operating from positions of power. These are not criminals with a record of violence or histories of petty theft. Rather, they are educated, respected and well-positioned individuals who use their expertise, professional status and social capital to engage in activities that are unethical, exploitative and illegal.
The term, popularised by sociologist Edwin Sutherland, refers to non-violent crimes committed by individuals in high-status occupations, typically for financial gain. Such crime is slow, methodical and concealed under layers of paperwork, jargon and institutional complexity. Its perpetrators are usually those entrusted with responsibility 鈥� corporate executives, bureaucrats, financial officers 鈥� who exploit that very trust to orchestrate fraud, embezzlement and corruption. These offences may appear 鈥榗lean鈥� on the surface, but their social consequences are anything but.
But what makes someone in a seemingly respectable position choose the path of deceit? What allows them to rationalise their actions? Several psychological and sociological theories shed light on this behaviour.
Rational Choice Theory, for instance, presents a striking insight. White-collar criminals are often strategic thinkers, engaging in a cost-benefit analysis before committing an offence. They calculate the potential reward against the risk of being caught, and when the latter seems minimal, particularly in a weak regulatory setting, the temptation grows. This behaviour is often accompanied by a psychological sense of invincibility. Many such individuals do not view themselves as criminals at all. Instead, they see their actions as clever manoeuvres or necessary evils in a competitive world.
Beyond rational thinking, deeper psychological traits often underpin white-collar criminal behaviour. There is a well-documented link between white-collar crime and what psychologists refer to as the 鈥榙ark triad鈥� of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Narcissistic individuals tend to overestimate their importance and are often driven by a desire for prestige and success. This inflated self-image allows them to disregard ethical boundaries with ease. Psychopathy, characterised by impulsivity, lack of empathy and fearlessness, makes one more likely to act without regard for consequences. These traits, when found in leaders or executives, become particularly dangerous: a manipulative, status-driven individual with power and resources can inflict far more damage than a common thief.
Sociological theories also offer compelling explanations. Edwin Sutherland, who coined the term white-collar crime, proposed the 鈥榙ifferential association theory鈥�, which emphasises that criminal behaviour is learned through interaction. Within corporate or institutional cultures where unethical behaviour is common, where fudging numbers is normalised, or bribes are seen as part of doing business, newcomers quickly adapt. In such environments, misconduct becomes less of a transgression and more of a survival strategy.
Robert Merton鈥檚 鈥榮train theory鈥� adds another dimension. It argues that when individuals are exposed to societal goals 鈥� wealth, status, power 鈥� but lack legitimate means to achieve them, they may turn to illegitimate alternatives. This theory is particularly relevant in contexts marked by inequality and limited upward mobility. Bangladesh is a fitting case in point.
In the Bangladeshi context, white-collar crime manifests most alarmingly in the public sector and the financial industry. Corruption, nepotism and embezzlement have become structural problems rather than isolated acts. The banking sector has witnessed repeated scandals involving misappropriated funds, loan defaults and insider trading, often protected or ignored by regulatory authorities. These are not crimes committed in desperation; they are crimes committed with calculation and confidence.
What makes this phenomenon particularly difficult to confront is the normalisation of such behaviour. When dishonest practices are not only widespread but also quietly rewarded, when the corrupt thrive and the honest are punished, then white-collar crime becomes a logical choice for those seeking success. Strain theory explains this drift: individuals feel compelled to meet societal expectations of success but are constrained by limited lawful avenues. In such cases, the decision to commit fraud or siphon off public funds is no longer viewed as deviant, but as necessary.
Cognitive justification also plays a critical role. When corruption becomes endemic, offenders stop seeing themselves as criminals. Instead, they view their actions as part of a larger, broken system, one where everyone is doing the same. This collective rationalisation allows white-collar criminals to operate with impunity. They may even see themselves as pragmatic survivors rather than dishonest actors. In a society that glorifies wealth and status, how one achieves these becomes secondary to the fact that they are achieved.
Ultimately, white-collar crime is not only a legal problem but a cultural and psychological one. It is a mirror reflecting the broader values and pressures of society. In Bangladesh, where economic aspiration often outpaces ethical scrutiny, the conditions are ripe for white-collar crime to flourish. These crimes do not just erode financial systems, they corrode public trust, deepen inequality and perpetuate a culture of impunity.
Tackling this issue, therefore, requires more than new regulations or harsher penalties. It demands a cultural shift: one that challenges the glorification of wealth at any cost, that builds ethical standards into professional environments and that holds individuals in power accountable, not just in law, but in public perception.
听
Maisha Farjana Anika is a law student at the Bangladesh University of Professionals.
