KSLU Solved Question Papers
White Collar Crimes
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2015 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 White Collar Crimes 2015 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2015 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2015 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2015 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Explain the nature, definition and growth of white collar criminality.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the definition (Sutherland's 1939 address and 1949 book; the four elements; the criticism by Tappan; the wider Indian idea of privileged class deviance and the Law Commission's description of socio-economic offences); the nature (respectability, occupation, breach of trust, organisation, diffuse victims, low visibility and low stigma, differential treatment), with a comparison against traditional crime; the growth: in ancient India (the Arthashastra), in the controlled economy after 1947 (licences, scarcity, black markets, the Santhanam Committee 1964), the response of the 1960s and 1970s (Law Commission Reports of 1966 and 1972), after liberalisation in 1991 (securities, banking and corporate frauds), and in the digital economy; the causes of growth; Nimmagadda Prasad, Sahara India Real Estate Corporation, Ramesh Gelli, Swami Achyutanand Tirth and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary; the law's response and its limits.
Definition
Edwin H. Sutherland, an American criminologist, introduced the term in his presidential address to the American Sociological Society in 1939. He developed it in his book White Collar Crime in 1949. He defined white collar crime as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation".
The definition has four elements.
- A crime. The act must be punishable by law, though it is often dealt with by a regulator rather than a criminal court.
- A person of respectability. The offender is trusted and respected, such as a businessman, banker, professional or official.
- High social status. His position gives him power and protects him from suspicion.
- In the course of his occupation. The crime is committed through his work. A rich man's assault at home is not white collar crime.
Criticism. Paul Tappan argued that conduct never tried in a criminal court should not be called crime. Others found "high status" too vague. Sutherland replied that the conduct is legally punishable, and that the gentle treatment of such offenders is itself the phenomenon to be explained.
The Indian idea. Indian writing, associated with Upendra Baxi, speaks of privileged class deviance: deviance by those who hold economic, official, political or professional power. The Law Commission's 29th Report (1966) described socio-economic offences as motivated by greed, injuring the community, committed in a lawful occupation, and hard to detect.
Nature
1. Respectable offenders. The offender belongs to the upper or middle class and enjoys public trust. His respectability is his best defence.
2. Occupational opportunity. The crime is a by-product of a lawful job: the banker's loan, the doctor's certificate, the official's licence.
3. Breach of trust. The offender misuses a position of confidence, not force.
4. Organised and planned. It is committed with cool calculation, often by several persons acting together.
5. Diffuse victims. The victim is the public, the revenue, consumers, depositors or investors. Each loses a little, many do not know, and few complain.
6. Low visibility. The act looks lawful, and the evidence lies in documents controlled by the offender.
7. Low stigma. Society often admires a clever businessman more than it condemns him.
8. Differential treatment. Regulators settle, courts acquit for want of proof, and sentences are light.
Compared with traditional crime.
| Point | Traditional crime | White collar crime |
|---|---|---|
| Offender | Often poor and marginal | Respectable and powerful |
| Method | Force, stealth or violence | Deception and abuse of position |
| Victim | A known individual | The public, the State, consumers |
| Harm | Visible, limited | Hidden, often enormous |
| Point | Traditional crime | White collar crime |
|---|---|---|
| Public reaction | Strong condemnation | Indifference or admiration |
| Usual outcome | Prosecution | Penalty, settlement or acquittal |
Growth
1. In ancient India. The idea is old. The Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya, catalogues the ways in which officials misappropriate the king's revenue. It observes that detecting an official taking the king's money is as hard as knowing when a fish moving in water drinks it.
2. In the controlled economy after 1947. Wartime controls and, later, the licence and permit system created scarcity and wide official discretion. Hoarding, black marketing, adulteration, smuggling and bribery for licences flourished. The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1964) found that corruption had become organised and had spread to higher levels. It noted that people in trade, industry and the professions fed it with unaccounted money.
3. The legal response of the 1960s and 1970s. The Law Commission's 29th Report (1966) treated socio-economic offences as a separate category. Its 47th Report (1972), on their trial and punishment, recommended strict liability, a shifted burden of proof and higher minimum punishments. Special laws such as the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and the foreign exchange laws were strengthened.
4. After liberalisation in 1991. The opening of the economy multiplied financial transactions. Securities frauds, bank frauds, corporate frauds and money laundering grew with the markets. White collar crime moved from the black market to the stock market and the boardroom.
5. In the digital economy. Online banking and payments brought cyber fraud, identity theft, data theft and investment frauds through apps and the internet, reaching millions of victims.
Causes of growth
- Economic growth and complexity, which create more chances for fraud.
- Wide official discretion, which invites bribery.
- Costly elections and political funding, which link business and politics.
- Consumerism and the desire for quick wealth.
- Weak regulators and slow courts, which make the crime low-risk.
- Technology, which lets one offender reach thousands of victims.
The courts on its growth
Economic offences as a class apart. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, investments in a company were allegedly made in return for favours from the State Government. The Supreme Court refused bail. It said economic offences "constitute a class apart" and threaten the financial health of the country.
Fraud on small investors. In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, decided on 31 August 2012, two group companies raised over Rs 24,000 crore from millions of investors. They called it a "private placement". The Court held that an offer to fifty or more persons is a public issue, whatever its label. It upheld SEBI's direction to refund.
Bank officers within the anti-corruption law. In Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli, decided on 23 February 2016, officers of a private bank were prosecuted for corruption. The Court held them public servants by virtue of section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act. So the growth of private banking did not put bankers beyond the law.
Adulteration on a mass scale. In Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 699, milk was being adulterated with urea, detergent and caustic soda. A national survey found 68.4 per cent of samples non-conforming. The Court directed laboratories, sampling drives and State committees.
Following the money. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, the money-laundering law was challenged. The Court substantially upheld its powers of attachment, search, arrest and strict bail.
Why the respectable offend: three explanations
- Differential association. Sutherland's own theory says crime is learned in close groups. A young executive learns from colleagues how to evade tax or fix prices, and also learns the excuses that make it seem normal.
- Anomie. Robert K. Merton argued that a society which prizes wealth but limits lawful means to it pushes people towards unlawful means. Even the successful feel pressure to earn more.
- Rational choice. The gains are large, detection is unlikely and punishment is mild. A calculating offender finds the crime worth the risk.
Each explanation fits the Indian story of growth: new markets created new chances, new pressures and new excuses, while enforcement lagged behind.
The law's response and its limits
India now has strict liability, presumptions, special courts, liability of companies, and attachment of proceeds. Yet detection is low, trials are slow and convictions are few. As Sutherland said, the difference between the crimes of the rich and of the poor lies largely in how society responds to them.
Conclusion. White collar criminality is Sutherland's crime of the respectable in the course of their occupation. In India it is understood more widely as privileged class deviance. Its nature is breach of trust, organised and hidden, against diffuse victims, and treated gently. It grew from the official corruption Kautilya described, through the black markets of the controlled economy and the Santhanam Committee's warning. It then reached the financial and digital frauds after 1991. Nimmagadda Prasad, Sahara, Ramesh Gelli, Swami Achyutanand Tirth and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary show the courts responding.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 10 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.