Introduction

This paper includes information about Economic crime. It explains the concept of Economic Crime which
states that Economic crime refers to any action or omission that runs counter to the public economic
policy. Economic crime’s vision is not limited to crimes committed in the public sector, but also extends
to those perpetrated by economic actors in the private sector. This paper also discusses reasons why we
need to study Economic Crime. Economic crime is regarded to generate a considerable social damage.
That’s because it doesn’t only affect democratic institutions but also undermines the state treasure by
cutting available resources for the implementation of public policies. The economic crimes are all actions
conducive to inflicting damage on public funds, production activities, distribution, circulation and
consumption of commodities and services, as well as the relations related to supply, planning, training
and manufacture, to the support of industry,credit, insurance, transport, trade, companies, cooperative
societies, taxes and the protection of animal, plant, water and mineral resources. Also, the difference of
Economic Crimes from traditional crimes. It differs from each other in the sense of its characteristics and
manner of commission which is usually invisible and open perceived as a “good business”. Unlike the
conventional crimes which direct effect is to the victim, economic crimes affect society as a whole. Such
crime is very costly and worsen national debt, it undermines developed country much lesser the poor or
developing country.

Criminologists, and social scientists more generally, have for decades marginalised most unlawful
(criminal, civil, and administrative) behaviours outside neighbourhoods that are organised for economic
or financial gain via ostensibly legitimate business or organisational structures, that is, ‘economic
crimes’, whether they be for the benefit of individuals or organisations. (We might also incorporate
crimes committed for the benefit of countries and the non-criminalisation/non-regulation of lawful but
harmful behaviours within this disciplinary gap). Yet as Button et al. (2022) have also observed,
‘economic crime’, and the oft used (but maybe analytically distinguishable) synonyms, ‘financial crimes’
or ‘finance crimes’, as well as other cognate concepts such as ‘frauds’, ‘white-collar crimes’ or ‘financial
abuse/misconduct’, represent an increasingly significant proportion of all experienced, reported and
recorded crimes (at least 40 % of survey measured crimes in England and Wales, for example): in this
respect, both newer and older forms of ‘fraud’ might properly be viewed as the crimes of the 21st
Century (Albanese, 2005).

The following are the common types of Economic Crimes: Identity theft, tax fraud, health care crimes,
schemes and scams and cybercrime. Another one is the sanctions given once proven guilty. Under
criminal sanctions, the offenses include embezzlement, theft, corruption, crimes of money contraband,
counterfeit, and premeditated sabotage of public funds. The judge may confiscate the objects or
instruments used in the commission of the crime or freeze the funds arising therefrom. While the
following are the non-criminal sanctions: Indemnification of the damage; Ordering that the work be
completed; Annulment of work that runs counter to the economic law; and Reinstatement of the status
quo to what it was. Here are the economic sanctions: Prohibition of
carrying on economic activities; Shutdown of the economic firms; Business discontinuation or
dissolution of the economic firm; Placement of the economic firm under receivership; Withdrawal of
export/import permits; Withdrawal of the economic firm’s incorporation act; and Exclusion from certain
exemptions prescribed in the law. Lastly, it contains the countermeasures to be taken. It is said that
carrying out appropriate studies, initiating negotiations, having reformation, economic activities should
be subjected to a legal order, economic legislation should be accessible to the public, disseminating
awareness and imposing meticulous controlling may be used to lessen the economic crime in the
community. Therefore,economic crimes do not attack us personally, but it affect us all as a community. I
had learned that once these economic crimes are omnipresent in the community, it generate a huge
social damage which affects the implementation of public policies, services, funds and also the country’s
development.

Body Paragraph

The economic crime as stated is interchangeable with financial crime. Both of it refersto illegal acts
committed by an individual or a group of individuals to obtain a financial or professional advantage. The
principal motive in such crimes areeconomic gain. Also, economic crime is sometimes confused with
corruption. In the sense of its definition, since corruption is defined as one of theparts of a more
complex and more comprehensive criminal phenomenon, which is economic crime. Therefore, our
vision is not limited to crimes committed in the public sectors, but also extends to those perpetrated by
economic actors in the private sectors. Economic crime’s vision also relates to the problem of corruption
as to the lack of transparency of the state, may that be it in the form of barrier to access public
information or the pinpoint hiring opportunities to certain companies in the area ofgoods and services.
Thus, economic crime, alone, covers a wide range of offenses, from financial crimes committed by
banks, tax evasion, illicit capital heavens, money laundering, crimes committed by public officials (like
bribery, embezzlement, traffic of influences, etc.) among many others. Economic crime is regarded to
generate a considerable social damage. This is because it does not only affect our institution, but also, it
undermines our country’s treasure by having a limited resources and public funds for the
implementation of public policies, services, etc. The people that are more vulnerable are those who
need these services the most. The people become one of the main victims of corruption and economic
crime. Also, the social damages generated by this economic crimes are usually invisible: apart from the
general indignation, is rather complex to have a precise awareness about the true effects of these crime.

‘Economic crime poses a rapidly growing, and increasingly complex, threat to UK national security and
prosperity. Criminals continue to seek ways to commit, and benefit from, economic crime including
fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion and corruption. This fuels the serious organised crime that
damages the fabric of society, causes immense harm to individuals’ finances, wellbeing and the interests
of legitimate businesses, and undermines our international reputation.’ (HM Government, 2023: 4)
There may be analytical commonalities at a high level of generality, but otherwise these are diverse
behaviours by offenders, enablers, and victims, diverse in terms of the domestic and transnational
organisation of the behaviours, and also in terms of the control and regulatory responses, whether this
involves local or more central police teams and/or a range of regulators. Care needs to be taken not to
artificially lump together, or alternatively to carve up, core behaviours that constitute the object of
study unless we can provide an analytical justification for so doing. That is, the concepts at the centre of
any such shift in social science and policy, those of ‘economic crime’ incorporate a diverse array of
actors, behaviours, responses, and disciplines, whose relationships vary, and it is important to think
through what the loose parameters (e.g., to reflect policy concerns) or the tight parameters (e.g., as part
of the operationalisation process for empirical research) of them actually are. This is necessary both for
theory building and explanations, and for regulatory responses and interventions. The high level of
diversity means any theory on ‘economic crime’ can only ever be highly general and thus mundane and
without real meaning. Similarly, control mechanisms to respond to ‘economic crime’ can rarely capture
intelligently all those behaviours currently associated with ‘its’ confused and conflated conception.

Conclusion

In this article we have suggested that the term ‘economic crime’ is a somewhat chaotic conception, that
is, on occasion there are tendencies in both policy and social science to arbitrarily lump together
features that are unrelated and inessential, and to bring together diverse issues and phenomena that
have little analytical overlaps in both social scientific and policy discourse. We also considered what the
term ‘economic criminology’ actually means, pointing out how it has become fashionable to prefix
criminology with another term to create a new sub-discipline without clear analytical justification for
doing so (although we are not saying that is the case here and now), but also making the point that
approaching economic crime from what might traditionally be regarded as a criminological perspective
alone is sometimes not sufficient, as economic crimes are multi-faceted and complex, and we need an
inter-disciplinary, multi-dimensional approach that allows the creative tensions between competing
disciplines to flourish rather than be siloed. Interdisciplinarity is often a ritual claim or incantation by
academics but there is a genuine case for it here, as we can shift the lenses around through which we
view ‘economic crimes’ between macro comparative studies and micro analyses of why organisational
insiders or outsiders make particular decisions on the pathways to offending.

That said, how we conceptualise and approach economic crimes is more than semantics. It has
implications for how we determine which legal or extra-legal regulatory, enforcement and societal
responses are most appropriate, and what levels or types of response are considered to be adequate.
For instance, what do we mean by ‘effective’ in the response to economic crimes? Does it mean
reducing levels of economic crime offending and victimisation through criminal justice/regulatory
intervention and/or prevention? Or, reducing the harms associated with economic crimes so that the
number of crimes may remain the same but their social impact (for example on those less well placed to
afford them) is reduced? Or, increasing the perceived legitimacy of state, commercial and/or civil society
responses? Or increasing efficiencies in the response to make it cost-effective either for the taxpayer or
for the private sector, sometimes transferring reaction costs to others? In other words, what are the
objectives or goals for anti-economic crime? These questions also raise the issue of measurement and
evaluation. For instance, as we have just stated, economic crime is not a singular thing, so what exactly
do we need to measure and why? What are the high priority issues that require attention, and how do
we set criteria to inform prioritisation? We can only really understand the impacts of different
interventions if we have a ‘good enough’ picture of levels of offending, but what constitutes a good
enough picture? The key thing is that those responsible need to design in, collect, and analyse better
data to understand the impacts of the measures they introduce and whether they meet the stated
objectives, and if not, why not. As with all attempts at responding to crimes, a key starting point needs
to be understanding the nature, characteristics, and organisation of particular forms of economic crimes
to inform how and why they occur and therefore where critical points of vulnerability might appear. One
challenge is to do this as forms of economic crime change with new technologies (e.g., NFTs), or as the
global organisation of economic crimes changes where there is significant offender-victim separation
and variation across different countries, raising questions about who has ultimate responsibility for
dealing with different crimes.

Alongside less theoretical pieces that the subject will attract, a criminology-informed interdisciplinary
perspective is well placed to address these questions, both in terms of enhanced analytical and
empirical insights, but also in applied terms, to inform regulators, law enforcement and private/third
sector organisations with responsibility for responding to these economic crimes. However, it also
requires criminologists to move outside their comfort zones and look at broader regulatory, civil and
social controls without yielding to the temptation always to complain that these are softer, unjust
alternatives to criminal justice imposed upon the poor.