Regulatory Regimes for White Collar Crime & Corporate Crime.
White Collar Crime: Essay 3.
Regulatory regimes for white collar crime & corporate crime.
The regulatory regimes in place for white-collar crime (WCC) and corporate crime (CC) are much more extensive than those for any other sort of crimes, problematically WCC and CC continues to grow. This essay will firstly, examine the regulatory regimes in place for the increasing WCC of credit card fraud and secondly how corporations are regulated to prevent CC against the environment through fly-tipping.
The controversial facts and figures that surround the fast growing crime of credit card fraud can be very disturbing. The most recent figures suggest that credit card fraud has had a major increase from April to December 2006 it rose 6.6% to 56,065. Furthermore the Home Office suggested that the estimated cost of credit and plastic card fraud alone costs £428m in 2006.
The increase awareness to the fast growing crime many regulated regimes have been introduced to try and combat credit card fraud. One major change has been the long awaited Fraud Act. Historically fraud was prosecuted under various and extremely outdated guises of deception. The Fraud Act 2006 has established a single statutory for the general offence of fraud with three ways of committing it. The first is through false representation, by failing to disclose information and by abuse of position. The second way is by obtaining services dishonestly and of possessing, making and supplying articles for use in frauds, and finally through fraud by abuse of position.
The Fraud Act enables new measures for modernising the law to equip investigators and prosecutors to detect and successfully impose the penalties for the offence committed.
There are many external regulators that many companies use. To dominant regulators are APACS and CIFAS. Each has developed regulatory regimes to try and combat credit card fraud. Apacs is the UK trade association for payments and for those institutions that
Regulatory regimes for white collar crime & corporate crime.
The regulatory regimes in place for white-collar crime (WCC) and corporate crime (CC) are much more extensive than those for any other sort of crimes, problematically WCC and CC continues to grow. This essay will firstly, examine the regulatory regimes in place for the increasing WCC of credit card fraud and secondly how corporations are regulated to prevent CC against the environment through fly-tipping.
The controversial facts and figures that surround the fast growing crime of credit card fraud can be very disturbing. The most recent figures suggest that credit card fraud has had a major increase from April to December 2006 it rose 6.6% to 56,065. Furthermore the Home Office suggested that the estimated cost of credit and plastic card fraud alone costs £428m in 2006.
The increase awareness to the fast growing crime many regulated regimes have been introduced to try and combat credit card fraud. One major change has been the long awaited Fraud Act. Historically fraud was prosecuted under various and extremely outdated guises of deception. The Fraud Act 2006 has established a single statutory for the general offence of fraud with three ways of committing it. The first is through false representation, by failing to disclose information and by abuse of position. The second way is by obtaining services dishonestly and of possessing, making and supplying articles for use in frauds, and finally through fraud by abuse of position.
The Fraud Act enables new measures for modernising the law to equip investigators and prosecutors to detect and successfully impose the penalties for the offence committed.
There are many external regulators that many companies use. To dominant regulators are APACS and CIFAS. Each has developed regulatory regimes to try and combat credit card fraud. Apacs is the UK trade association for payments and for those institutions that
Bibliography: M. Clifford. (1998) Environmental Crime: Enforcement, Policy and social Responsibility. Bell, S Hughes, (1998) “Environmental Protection: Underlying Concepts – A personal Exploration Part III.” Enviromental Law & Mangement. Vol.10 No.6. Y DuPont and Zakkow, op ENDS Report (2002) “Agency Slams “Merge” fines for waste offences.” No.334, November ENDS Report (2001) “Compamnies treat pollution as ‘acceptable risk’ says agency” No.321. October. Howarth. W. (1997) “Self- monitoring, self policing, self incriminating and pollution law.” Modern Law Review. Vol.60, No.2 DePrez Watson. M.( 2002) “Stencing the environmental offender”, Justice Of The Peace, Vol.166. DuPont.C.& Zakkow