14
EM FILE
718-A

IN
S. 1
fice
GRAD
HV
6635
B46
1993
ITEM FILE
ng
tio
TO
Docs
SVIMEN
UST
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
nuno
JUSTITIA
Research in Brief
Charles B. DeWitt, Director
January 1993
Local Prosecutors and Corporate Crime.H.
by Michael L. Benson, Francis T. Cullen, and William J. Maakestad
MAY 17 1993
Dents Center
mes committed by and for business
e a serious threat to the health, safety,
financial welfare of consumers and
skers as well as to the orderly function-
of the economy and the government.
nmonly known as corporate or organi-
onal crimes, these offenses raise special
blems for detection, prosecution, and
ction.' Isolated efforts by individual
orcement agencies have proven inad-
ate against this type of crime, under-
ring the need for a coordinated,
tistrategy response from Federal,
e, and local levels of government.
torically, the Federal Government has
imed primary responsibility for control-
corporate crime, but in the past two
ades, local prosecutors have become
easingly concerned about this problem.
973 the National District Attorneys
ociation established an Economic
ne Committee to encourage local pros-
ors to enforce white collar crime laws
to enhance their enforcement ability.
1975, 43 district attorneys' offices were
icipating in the committee's Economic
ne Project.
Since the Economic Crime Project was The first component of the study was a
begun nearly 20 years ago, local re- mail survey of 632 district attorneys with
sponse to corporate white-collar crime jurisdictions located in or near urban ar-
has changed significantly. In the past, eas. Completed questionnaires were re-
district attorneys concentrated almost ceived from 419 districts, a response rate
exclusively on economic crimes such as of 66 percent. The survey data were then
consumer fraud. They are now pros- merged with economic, social, and official
ecuting a wider variety of cases, includ- crime data for each jurisdiction. The sec-
ing occupational safety violations and ond component of the study involved case
the illegal dumping of toxic waste. In studies in four jurisdictions: Cook County,
nearly every State, prosecutors have Illinois; Los Angeles County, California;
sought criminal indictments against Dade County, Florida; and Nassau County,
corporations, partnerships, and other New York. In each jurisdiction prosecu-
business entities for noneconomic
tors, regulatory officials, and representa-
offenses.
tives of various law enforcement agencies
were interviewed regarding their views of
This Research in Brief summarizes a
corporate crime and their interactions with
National Institute of Justice study of
other law enforcement agencies.
local prosecutors' work against corpo-
rate crime. For the study, corporate
crime was defined as "a violation of a Trends in corporate crime
criminal statute either by a corporate prosecutions
entity or by its executives, employees,
or agents acting on behalf of and for the One conclusion is that local prosecution of
benefit of the corporation, partnership, corporate crime is becoming more wide-
or other form of business entity."
spread. More than one-quarter of the sur-
IVERSITY OF MICHSutions have increased during their
respondents said that corporate
LIBRARIES
rom the Director
ocal prosecutions of corporate crime,
articularly crimes against the environment
nd consumer fraud, are becoming more
idespread. Six out of 10 local prosecutors
ho responded to a recent National Institute
f Justice survey reported increased num-
ers of corporate prosecutions by their
ffices.
nce confined almost entirely to the Fed-
al courts, local prosecutions of corporate
imes have increased steadily since the
conomic Crime Project was established in
975 by the Economic Crime Committee of
MAY 17 1993
the National District ARFERQASIE GOBY successful prosecutions often require sub-
As this NIJ RJNITED STATES OF AMERICkime and labor, the availability of
local district attorneys are now taking
resources plays a significant role in local
corporate defendants to court for a growing activity against corporate crime.
variety of offenses, including occupational
safety violations and the illegal dumping of
In addition to reporting on the results of the
toxic waste.
survey, this Institute report offers suggestions
that may improve cooperation among Fed-
Local prosecutions of corporate offenders eral, State, and local agencies in combating
are not undertaken easily; as this report this problem within our society.
shows, the complex, often technical nature
of crimes committed in an organizational
Charles B. DeWitt
Director
setting can make them both costly and
National Institute of Justice
difficult to prosecute. And because
VM

J 28.24:P 94/4
718-A-2
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
Alle
ROTIC
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
QUITUR
DOMINA JUSTITIA
Research in Brief
Charles B. DeWitt, Director
January 1993
Local Prosecutors and Corporate Crime wri.
by Michael L. Benson, Francis T. Cullen, and William J. Maakestad
G 1 i 1993
7
Crimes committed by and for business
pose a serious threat to the health, safety,
and financial welfare of consumers and
workers as well as to the orderly function-
ing of the economy and the government.
Commonly known as corporate or organi-
zational crimes, these offenses raise special
problems for detection, prosecution, and
sanction.' Isolated efforts by individual
enforcement agencies have proven inad-
equate against this type of crime, under-
scoring the need for a coordinated,
multistrategy response from Federal,
State, and local levels of government.
Historically, the Federal Government has
assumed primary responsibility for control-
ling corporate crime, but in the past two
decades, local prosecutors have become
increasingly concerned about this problem.
In 1973 the National District Attorneys
Association established an Economic
Crime Committee to encourage local pros-
ecutors to enforce white-collar crime laws
and to enhance their enforcement ability.
By 1975, 43 district attorneys' offices were
participating in the committee's Economic
Crime Project.
- Center
Since the Economic Crime Project was The first component of the study was a
begun nearly 20 years ago, local re- mail survey of 632 district attorneys with
sponse to corporate white collar crime
jurisdictions located in or near urban ar-
has changed significantly. In the past, eas.? Completed questionnaires were re-
district attorneys concentrated almost ceived from 419 districts, a response rate
exclusively on economic crimes such as of 66 percent. The survey data were then
consumer fraud. They are now pros- merged with economic, social, and official
ecuting a wider variety of cases, includ- crime data for each jurisdiction. The sec-
ing occupational safety violations and ond component of the study involved case
the illegal dumping of toxic waste. In studies in four jurisdictions: Cook County,
nearly every State, prosecutors have Illinois; Los Angeles County, California;
sought criminal indictments against Dade County, Florida; and Nassau County,
corporations, partnerships, and other New York. In each jurisdiction prosecu-
business entities for noneconomic
tors, regulatory officials, and representa-
offenses.
tives of various law enforcement agencies
were interviewed regarding their views of
This Research in Brief summarizes a
corporate crime and their interactions with
National Institute of Justice study of
other law enforcement agencies.
local prosecutors' work against corpo-
rate crime. For the study, corporate
crime was defined as "a violation of a Trends in corporate crime
criminal statute either by a corporate prosecutions
entity or by its executives, employees,
or agents acting on behalf of and for the One conclusion is that local prosecution of
benefit of the corporation, partnership, corporate crime is becoming more wide-
or other form of business entity.”
spread. More than one-quarter of the sur-
vey respondents said that corporate
VERSITY OF MIChjoisetutions have increased during their
LIBRARIES
MAY 17 1993
From the Director
Local prosecutions of corporate crime,
particularly crimes against the environment
and consumer fraud, are becoming more
widespread. Six out of 10 local prosecutors
who responded to a recent National Institute
of Justice survey reported increased num-
bers of corporate prosecutions by their
offices.
the National District AREROASIAT FOBY successful prosecutions often require sub-
As this NIJ RIMITED STATES OF AMERICAime and labor, the availability of
local district attorneys are now taking
resources plays a significant role in local
corporate defendants to court for a growing activity against corporate crime.
variety of offenses, including occupational
safety violations and the illegal dumping of
In addition to reporting on the results of the
toxic waste.
survey, this Institute report offers suggestions
that may improve cooperation among Fed-
Local prosecutions of corporate offenders eral, State, and local agencies in combating
are not undertaken easily; as this report this problem within our society.
shows, the complex, often technical nature
Charles B. DeWitt
of crimes committed in an organizational
Director
setting can make them both costly and
difficult to prosecute. And because
National Institute of Justice
Once confined almost entirely to the Fed-
eral courts, local prosecutions of corporate
crimes have increased steadily since the
Economic Crime Project was established in
1975 by the Economic Crime Committee of
7
6635
Only one type of noneconomic crime-
environmental offenses—was prosecuted
as often as economic crime. In 1988, 31
percent of the offices handled at least one
environmental offense.
713
tenure in office. One-quarter reported that
they expected to prosecute more corporate
cases in the future. Less than 1 percent
had seen or anticipated a decrease in
prosecutions.
Prosecutors in large jurisdictions (those
with populations over 250,000) most fre-
quently reported increased rates of corpo-
rate prosecutions. Roughly 6 out of 10
respondents in large jurisdictions said
prosecutions had increased during their
tenures in office, and a majority expected
this trend to continue.
Prevalence of corporate
crime prosecutions
In 1988 two-thirds of the survey respond-
ents said their offices prosecuted at least
one of nine types of corporate crime (table
1). Although local prosecutors handled a
wider variety of corporate crimes in 1988
than in previous years, economic crimes
still made up the bulk of their corporate
crime caseload.
Consumer fraud was the most frequent-
ly prosecuted corporate offense, with 41
percent of the offices prosecuting at least
one case of consumer fraud.
• False claims and insurance fraud fol-
lowed as the most frequently prosecuted
economic crimes, with 31 percent of the
offices prosecuting at least one offense in
these categories.
Most districts did not have data on the
specific number of corporate offenses
handled in 1988. For this reason, the prev-
alence of local corporate crime prosecu-
tions can only be approximated (table 2).
• Typically, 15 percent of the districts
handled more than three consumer fraud
cases a year, while 20 percent of the dis-
tricts handled one to three annually.
• About 10 percent of local prosecutors
typically handled more than three false
claims, insurance fraud cases, or environ-
mental offenses per year.
Prosecutors in the case study sites reported
that most of their resources were allocated
to combat economic offenses, but noted
that environmental offenses were becom-
ing more prevalent. As one prosecutor
said, "The danger from this environmental
stuff is much greater than what we have to
worry about from drugs." Another noted,
“A day does not go by without my hearing
about some type of environmental issue on
television or in the newspapers. The prob-
lems are immense."
Variation in local corporate
crime prosecution
Because of their complex, technical nature,
crimes committed in an organizational
setting can be difficult to prosecute. Statis-
tical analysis revealed three significant
causes for local variations in corporate
crime prosecution: availability of re-
sources, community context, and regional
differences. These all affected how ag-
gressive local prosecutors were in respond-
ing to corporate crime.
Availability of resources. Because suc-
cessful prosecutions often require substan-
tial time and labor, the availability of
resources has a significant influence on
local activity against corporate crime.
Large offices (as measured by the number
of full-time attorneys) conducted more
corporate prosecutions than small offices.
Those offices that had joined an inter-
agency task force to combat white-collar
or economic crime or had established a
special unit tended to be more active than
offices lacking such arrangements.
Community context. The economic,
demographic, and social makeup of the
community also plays a significant role in
determining the aggressiveness of local
corporate crime prosecution. In the study,
community context affected local prosecu-
tors' attention and reaction to certain types
of offenses. For example, prosecutors in
Nassau County, New York, cited illegal
disposal of medical waste as a significant
environmental problem, while prosecutors
in Cook County, Illinois, cited illegal dis-
posal or abandonment of toxic chemicals
by defunct metal-plating businesses as a
typical problem. Local prosecutors tended
to be sensitive to the specific problems,
needs, and expectations of the communi-
ties in which they worked, much as are
local police forces.
Regional differences. Regional differ-
ences also affect the amount of local activ-
ity taken against corporate crime. In
general, prosecutors in western States
tended to be more active against most
forms of corporate crime than their coun-
terparts in northeastern, midwestern, and
southern States (table 3). Compared to
offices in other regions, a larger percentage
of western offices typically handled more
than three cases per year of most corporate
crimes.
Table1. Percentage of Offices Prosecuting Selected Corporate
Crimes in 1988*
Corporate crime
Yes
No
Consumer fraud
41%
59%
Securities fraud
22
78
Insurance fraud
31
69
Tax fraud
16
84
False claims
31
69
Workplace offenses
11
89
Environmental offenses
31
69
Illegal payments
16
84
Unfair trade practices
8
92
Any corporate offense
66
34
* In 1988, did your office actually prosecute any of the following corporate offenses?
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES
2
GDA
Dem
il 32-
Table 2. Frequency of Prosecutions in a Typical Year*
Frequency
Fewer than About More than
1 case 1-3 cases 3 cases
Corporate crime
Never per year per year per year
Consumer fraud
32%
33%
20%
15%
Securities fraud
57
28
12
3
Insurance fraud
38
39
15
9
Tax fraud
61
8
6
False claims
40
34
15
11
Workplace offenses
25
1
Environmental offenses 45
34
8
Illegal payments
51
37
10
2
Unfair trade practices
75
18
5
* Typically, how often does your office prosecute the corporate criminal offenses listed
below?
and representatives from Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies.
• Creating special units for economic
crimes, which allows prosecutors to
develop the technical and legal expertise
necessary to handle complex cases by con-
centrating on these types of crimes.
This survey found that 24 percent of local
prosecutors were using one or the other (or
both) of these special control strategies.
• Twenty-three percent of the respond-
ents had a special in-house unit in their
office for investigating and prosecuting
economic or white-collar crimes.
Eight percent were involved in an
interagency task force or strike group fo-
cusing on economic or white-collar crime.
• Of those involved in an interagency
task force, 75 percent also had a special
unit.
25
68
w o ū o T o
The use of special control strategies varied
by size of district and region of the country
and was more prevalent in large jurisdic-
tions than in small ones.
• Fourteen of the 30 largest offices were
involved in an interagency task force,
compared to only one of the 30 smallest
offices.
The higher level of activity among pros-
ecutors in the West may be due to the
types of offices and communities they
serve. First, the western offices sampled
were located in districts with compara-
tively large populations. Along with their
greater population size, these districts may
have more business activity, and therefore,
more potential offenses than districts in
other regions. Second, the western offices
tended to have more attorneys and investi-
gators than offices in other regions. Third,
legal or cultural factors unique to westem
States may cause local prosecutors to take
a comparatively more vigorous approach
to corporate crime. However, the true
cause of regional variation remains unclear
and deserves further investigation."
Networking and special units
The Economic Crime Project discovered
two ways for local prosecutors to augment
resources and increase efficiency against
corporate crime:
• Using interagency teams to analyze,
investigate, and prosecute complex white-
collar crimes. These networks typically
include prosecutors; regulatory officials;
• More than 70 percent of the respond-
ents in large jurisdictions used one or more
Table 3. Percentage of Offices Prosecuting More Than Three
Cases per Year, by Region*
Region
West Northeast Midwest
Crime
South
Discovery of corporate
offenses
District attorneys learned about corporate
misconduct through a variety of official
and unofficial sources. Most often, cases
came to the attention of prosecutors after
complaints by business and citizen victims.
The second most common sources were
the local police and State regulatory
agencies, followed by the State police and
State attorney general's offices. Federal
law enforcement and regulatory agencies
did not refer many cases to local prosecu-
tors (table 4).
Consumer fraud
11% 42% 16% 9%
Securities fraud
3
9
2
3
Insurance fraud
8
15
13
6
Tax fraud
7
9
2
5
False claims
9
30
12
7
Workplace offenses
3
2
0
Environmental offenses
3
33
9
6
Illegal payments
2
2
5
2
Unfair trade practices
1
28
* Typically, how often does your office prosecute the corporate criminal offenses listed
below?
.
3
Table 4. Frequency of Referrals From Selected Sources*
Constraints on prosecutorial
discretion
Before deciding to proceed with a corpo-
rate case, prosecutors reported they consid-
ered many factors, including the type of
offense, resources available, actions of
other agencies, preferences of victims, and
potential impact of the prosecution on the
local community. Some of these factors
limited the prosecutor's willingness to
proceed with a corporate prosecution,
while others increased it.
41
Frequency
Fewer than About More than
1 case 1-3 cases 3 cases
Referral source
Never per year per year per year
Local police
25%
40%
20%
15%
State police
37
16
6
State attorney general 40
37
16
6
State regulatory agency
28
39
20
14
Federal regulatory agency
71
22
6
1
U.S. Attorney's Office
72
23
5
0.3
FBI
63
29
7
1
Business victims
22
37
19
Citizen victims
18
37
23
22
Public interest groups
59
28
9
4
In general, how often do the sources listed below refer potential corporate criminal
cases to your office for investigation or prosecution?
21
+
of the special strategies, compared to less
than 10 percent of their counterparts in
small districts.
Factors that limited prosecution. The
most important factors limiting local pros-
ecution of corporate crimes were inad-
equate resources, legal constraints, and
availability of alternative remedies.
• Seventy percent of the survey respond-
ents were less willing to prosecute if State
or Federal regulatory agencies had already
acted in a case.
• About 60 percent stated they probably
would limit their willingness to prosecute
if personnel were insufficient.
• More than 50 percent said they would
be less willing to prosecute if victims were
not cooperative or if criminal intent was
difficult to establish in a corporate context.
The inadequacies of resources at the local
level became apparent during visits to the
case study sites. Even in relatively large
well-to-do offices, prosecutors often did
not have basic equipment. For example,
prosecutors in one of the largest districts
lamented that they did not have dicta-
phones and that memorandums, briefs, and
other documents had to be written in long-
hand before office secretaries could type
them.
• Special units and interagency networks
were more common in western and, to a
lesser extent, northeastern districts than in
midwestern or southern districts.
Cooperation with other
agencies
Joint investigations with Federal agencies
were rare. Less than 10 percent of the
respondents said they worked with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
U.S. Attorney's Office, or a Federal regu-
latory agency as often as once a year. In
three out of five offices, prosecutors never
worked with these Federal agencies.
Some prosecutors interviewed during the
case study visits faulted Federal investiga-
tive agencies for not referring cases to
local officials. Although local prosecutors
recognized the need for Federal agencies to
focus on large cases, they believed that
some small, unpursued cases may have
had significant local impact. While ac-
knowledging different priorities, the pros-
ecutors believed that too many cases have
escaped enforcement. Better communica-
tion between Federal and local officials
could provide prosecutors with leads to
pursue local cases not pursued by Federal
agencies.
However, despite growing recognition of
the seriousness of corporate crime and
widespread knowledge that traditional
methods of law enforcement are inad-
equate, the development of coordinated,
multistrategy responses from Federal,
State, and local governments remains more
an ideal than a reality.
Jointly coordinated investigations are an
integral part of networking. Local prosecu-
tors reported collaborating most often with
local police and State regulatory agencies
on joint investigations of corporate crimes
(table 5).
• The highest number, 38 percent, re-
ported working with local police on one or
more corporate cases annually.
• Twenty-eight percent said they worked
with State regulatory agencies on one or
more corporate cases each year.
At least once a year, more than 20 per-
cent of prosecutors worked with the State
attorney general's office and State police.
• Almost 20 percent of prosecutors coop-
erated with another jurisdiction at least
once a year.
An investigator in the same district pointed
out that a car phone and an answering
machine would greatly improve her effi-
ciency and productivity, enabling her to
receive and return calls as she traveled
around the city working her cases. Without
a phone, her time in the car was, as she put
it, “mostly wasted.” She and other inter-
viewees noted that these items are standard
equipment in all but the smallest private
law firms.
On a more substantive level, prosecutors in
one district commented that their ability to
develop and dispose of environmental
4
corporate crime conviction. In contrast,
less than 10 percent ranked retribution as
the most important objective in prosecut-
ing street criminals.
Most of the prosecutors interviewed at the
case study sites echoed these opinions,
arguing that corporate offenders were more
easily deterred than ordinary street offend-
ers. Furthermore, prosecutors expressed a
strong sense of moral outrage over the
"arrogance” and “callousness” of many
business offenders, particularly those in-
volved in repeated and intentional viola-
tions. For these offenders, the imposition
of criminal sanctions for the sake of deter-
rence and retribution was regarded as
appropriate, necessary, and deserved.
cases was seriously diminished by the lack
of access to adequate laboratory facilities.
For example, delays in identifying poten-
tially toxic substances limited the prosecu-
tors' options in responding to cases of
illegal disposal or handling of toxic wastes.
As one prosecutor explained, to “find out
what's in a substance 6 months later is too
late in an environmental case. How can
you walk in [to a court) and [ask] for in-
junctive relief and say there's an immedi-
ate need to close this (business) down
when you've waited 6 months? How can
you do anything criminally—and talk
about how bad this is—if our office lets it
go 6 months at a time?”
Factors that increased prosecution. The
factors most likely to increase a prosecu-
tor's willingness to proceed against a cor-
porate wrongdoer involved the nature of
the offense and the characteristics of the
offender. More than 90 percent of the
respondents indicated they would be more
willing to prosecute cases that involved the
following:
• Physical harm to victims.
• Evidence of multiple offenses.
• Large numbers of victims.
Substantial economic harm.
Only slightly less important were the
education and deterrence functions of
prosecution. More than 85 percent said the
"need to deter other potential corporate
offenders” would increase their willingness
to prosecute. About 75 percent felt simi-
larly about the “need to demonstrate
publicly that the law applies equally to all
offenders."
In contrast, 40 percent of the respondents
ranked deterrence of other offenders as the
most important objective in pursuing cor-
porate crimes. In the view of one experi-
enced prosecutor:
There's only one advantage to cor-
porate prosecutions—in terms of its
deterrence value, one prosecution is
worth 500. I've prosecuted maybe
50 murderers, and I've never de-
terred a street murderer. I've prob-
ably prosecuted one industrial
murderer, and I think we've deterred
a whole lot of people—at least woke
them up——so some people are trying
to do the right thing. So even with a
lack of resources, one corporate
prosecution is much more valuable
than one street crime prosecution.
Addressing the same issue, another
prosecutor commented on environmental
crime:
Everybody agrees that criminal
prosecution is the big hammer on
environmental people. The proof is
how loud they squeal when you file
the case, and boy, do they squeal.
Despite the supposed moral neutrality of
many corporate offenses, a notable propor-
tion of prosecutors felt that corporate of-
fenders deserve to be punished. Indeed, 35
percent ranked retribution as either the first
or second most important objective in a
The prosecutor as
problem solver
While acknowledging the importance of
convicting and punishing the guilty, some
prosecutors interviewed at the case study
sites articulated a broader concept of their
role in the criminal process. In their view,
the prosecutor's central function is reduc-
tion of criminal activity; deterrence is not
merely a hoped-for byproduct of the pun-
ishment process. So, rather than devote
themselves exclusively to the development
of prosecutable cases, these prosecutors
attempt to control criminal activity through
alternative means, an approach that has
been called "the prosecutor as problem
Table 5. Frequency of Joint Investigations With Selected Agencies*
Frequency
Goals of prosecution
In general, district attorneys pursued dif-
ferent goals when prosecuting corporate as
opposed to ordinary street crimes. In the
case of a traditional street crime committed
by an individual, the most important objec-
tive for local prosecutors tended to be
either deterrence or incapacitation.
• About 33 percent of the respondents
rated incapacitation or deterrence of the
offender as the most important objective in
prosecuting ordinary street crimes.
• Only 16 percent rated deterrence of
other street criminals as the most important
objective in this type of case.
Fewer than About More than
1 case
1-3 cases 3 cases
Agency
Never per year per year per year
Local police
29%
33%
22%
16%
State police
45
33
16
7
State attorney general
39
39
16
5
State regulatory agency 35
36
16
12
Federal regulatory agency 70
23
6
1
U.S. Attorney's Office
67
26
6
2
FBI
61
29
7
3
Another prosecutor
44
35
18
3
How often does your office cooperate on joint investigations of corporate crimes with
the agencies listed below?
5
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 05031 0625
solver.” Although it was more the excep-
tion than the rule, the case studies uncov-
ered evidence that such an approach is not
uncommon among local prosecutors.
For example, this strategy was used in a
case involving a well-respected corpora-
tion that had violated a State law govern-
ing the transportation and disposal of toxic
materials. Although there was enough
evidence to pursue a criminal indictment,
the prosecutor elected not to file charges.
Instead, he negotiated an agreement in
which the corporation paid a substantial
civil fine, donated money to a local hazard-
ous waste project, and reimbursed the
entire cost of the investigation. The money
from the civil fine was used to fund a
conference on environmental problems for
law enforcement and regulatory officials.
In this case, the prosecutor believed that
this approach both educated and deterred
other potential offenders, while the confer-
ence fostered environmental awareness
among local officials. Preventing other
corporate environmental violations took
precedence here over enforcing the law
against a particular offender.
Sharing information. Local prosecutors
cited a need for a centralized information
clearinghouse and brief bank to allow
prosecutors to benefit from the collective
knowledge and experience of their col-
leagues nationwide. For example, prosecu-
tors in small communities could draw on
the experience and wisdom of prosecutors
in large urban centers. Such a clearing-
house could also contain information on
alternative sanctions, innovative sentenc-
ing, and other enforcement techniques. It
would be especially useful in relatively
new areas of prosecution such as environ-
mental and workplace-related crimes.
Automation. The potential of computers
to coordinate work among investigators in
different agencies could be more fully
explored. Agencies often have cases stored
in a computer data base, but have no way
of knowing what cases other agencies are
working on. A centralized computer data
bank might be particularly useful to local
prosecutors in situations involving certain
types of financial fraud or in cases in
which victims are located in widely scat-
tered areas and offenders are mobile.
Many law enforcement agencies now use
computers for record keeping and case
management. These computer files could
tell investigators when someone in their
own agency is working on a particular
case, thus reducing duplication of effort
and facilitating information sharing.
Computer networks. Some prosecutors
and investigators suggested that a local
computer network linking agencies could
provide access to a common data base of
ongoing investigations and cases. The data
base entries could contain information on
the investigator (for example, name, tele-
phone number, and agency) and informa-
tion on the case (for example, victims,
suspects, and modus operandi). Investiga-
tors could use this data base to obtain both
information on the case and the name of
the investigator to coordinate activities.
Such a network would be particularly
useful in large urban areas where multiple
agencies in different jurisdictions often
work in geographical proximity.
Many technical details would require care-
ful consideration. For example, when a
computer network is installed, files would
need to be protected so that only the inves-
tigator entering a case into the data base
could alter information pertaining to it;
other investigators would need appropriate
security clearances to read a file without
altering it.
Regional laboratories. Regional laborato-
ries to serve multiple local jurisdictions
would make economic sense for hard-
pressed prosecutors, and the feasibility of
setting up such laboratories to analyze
chemical and environmental evidence
should be explored. These laboratories
could analyze and identify chemical
samples quickly, thus enabling local pros-
ecutors to respond to cases that Federal
agencies may deem too small or too local
in impact to pursue.
Publicizing of prosecutions. Finally, local
prosecutors and other law enforcement
agencies could take advantage of height-
ened public concern over corporate crime
by publicizing their prosecutions of such
offenses. The public needs to hear that
local prosecutors regard these crimes as
serious and to learn how to identify and
report them. Ultimately, effective law
enforcement depends on the support of
concerned citizens who are willing to
become involved.
Policy implications
In dealing with corporate offenders, local
prosecutors often find themselves compet-
ing with well-financed and well-staffed
law firms with vast financial and person-
nel resources, which can put up stiff legal
obstacles for prosecutors to overcome.
The effort is often expensive and time-
consuming, especially for prosecutors who
have limited staff and are facing these
challenges for the first time. The following
ideas on consolidating resources may be
worthy of exploration.
6
Notes
1. Corporate crime is a form of white-
collar crime. The distinctive feature of
corporate crime is that the offense is com-
mitted primarily for the benefit of an on-
going legitimate business enterprise, rather
than for the individual who carries out the
offense.
of activity against corporate crime. The
dependent variable in the regression analy-
sis was a scale measuring the overall level
of activity against corporate crime. To
construct the scale, the prosecutors' re-
sponses to the question on how often the
office typically prosecutes the selected
corporate crimes (see table 2) were as-
signed ordinal ranks and summed. The
independent variables were number of
attorneys, presence of a special unit, level
of retail employment, and region. All of
the independent variables exerted statisti-
cally significant effects and collectively
explained 40 percent of the variance in the
activity scale.
5. Goldstock, R., 1991. "The Prosecutor as
Problem Solver." Occasional Paper from
the Center for Research in Crime and
Justice, X. New York University School of
Law.

Michael L. Benson, Ph.D., is associ-
ate professor of sociology, Univer-
sity of Tennessee. Francis T. Cullen,
Ph.D., is professor of criminal jus-
tice and sociology, Department of
Criminal Justice, University of Cin-
cinnati. William J. Maakestad, J.D.,
is associate professor of manage-
ment, Western Illinois University.
This project was supported by Grant
#88-IJ-CX-0044 from the National
Institute of Justice.
2. The sample was drawn from a mailing
list provided by the National District Attor-
neys Association. Districts were classified
as urban if they were located in a Metro-
politan Statistical Area (MSA), as defined
by the U.S. Census Bureau.
3. Data were abstracted from the County
and City Data Book (1988), Files on Dis-
kette. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
4. A multiple regression analysis not dis-
cussed in this Brief confirmed the impor-
tance of resources, community context,
and regional location in determining levels
Points of view or opinions expressed
in this publication are those of the
authors and do not necessarily repre-
sent the official position or policies
of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The National Institute of Justice is a compo-
nent of the Office of Justice Programs, which
also includes the Bureau of Justice Assist-
ance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
tion, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
NCJ 137863
>
7