embezzlement and all points in between.
The federal government has taken a proactive stance toward the investigation of selected white collar crimes. In 1990, then Attorney General Richard Thornburgh proclaimed that the government was making the prosecution of certain crimes a major priority: "The Attorney General announced that the Department of Justice would intensify its efforts against 'Seven Deadly White-Collar Crimes': antitrust and environmental violations, fraud in defense procurement and the savings and loan industry, insider trading, public corruption, and money laundering" (Pursley, 1994, p. 106). The federal government's diligence in attacking white collar crime is welcomed by the general public. Most citizens believe that corporate executives are dishonest and even local prosecutors express a sense of moral outrage over the callousness of business offenders (Pursley, 1994; U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1993). Offenses like E.F. Hutton and Company's fraudulent practices during the mid 1980s reinforce this viewpoint. After pleading guilty to charges of cheating 400 banks out of $8 million, E.F. Hutton was fined $2 million, but not a single employee was charged with a crime. Thus major white collar offenses are too often conceived as "crimes without criminals," even by the federal government (Pursley, 1994, p. 111).
In contrast to the federal government, local prosecutors readily admit that they lack the resources to pursue the aggressive investigation and prosecution of white collar crime. For instance in a recent survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, district attorneys from over 400 jurisdictions located in or near urban areas were queried on the frequency of their prosecutions of organization crime (defined as a violation of criminal statutes either by a corporate entity or its executives, employees, or agents). In 1988, 60 percent of the offices responding had prosecuted no corporate criminals for ...