KSLU Solved Question Papers
White Collar Crimes
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2016 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 White Collar Crimes 2016 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 2016 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 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 2016 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 emergence of socio-economic crimes.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what socio-economic crimes are (crimes against the economy, public health and social welfare rather than a single victim) and why they are a modern phenomenon (economic regulation creates new offences; Sutherland's 1939 insight that the respectable offend too); their emergence in India in five waves, each with the conditions that produced it, the law it called for and a decided case: scarcity and controls (Essential Commodities Act 1955; Nathulal); foreign exchange, smuggling and black money (Mayer Hans George, R.K. Garg); corruption in an expanding State (Santhanam Committee, 1964; Kaidalwar); liberalisation, markets and banks (Vineet Narain, Sahara, Ramesh Gelli); globalisation and technology (Standard Chartered, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, Sharat Babu Digumarti, Swami Achyutanand Tirth); official recognition (Law Commission's 29th and 47th Reports); the common causes; how the law adapted; an assessment.
What socio-economic crimes are
Socio-economic crimes are offences that harm the economy, public health or social welfare rather than an identifiable individual. Examples are hoarding and black marketing, adulteration, smuggling, foreign exchange violations, tax evasion, corruption, financial fraud and money laundering. They are usually committed for gain by persons in trade, industry, the professions or public office.
Why they are a modern phenomenon
Traditional crimes, such as theft, assault and murder, are as old as society. Socio-economic crimes emerged with the modern economy and the regulatory State. The State fixes prices, licenses trade, controls foreign exchange, taxes income and regulates markets. Each such rule creates a new way to break it for profit. These are often wrongs only because the law prohibits them, but their harm to society is enormous.
Edwin Sutherland's 1939 work on white collar crime showed that such offending is committed by the respectable in the course of their occupation. It is not a product of poverty but of opportunity and the pursuit of profit.
Their emergence in India, in five waves
Wave 1: scarcity and controls
The Second World War, Partition and recurring droughts left India short of food and essential goods. Traders hoarded and sold at high prices on the black market. Parliament responded with the Essential Commodities Act 1955, which allows the Government to control production, supply, distribution and prices, and punishes hoarding.
In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, a grain dealer was prosecuted for storing wheat without a licence under a control order made under that Act. He honestly believed his licence had been granted after he applied and paid the fee. The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that mens rea is required unless the statute excludes it. The case shows both the new control offences and the courts' early caution in applying them.
Wave 2: foreign exchange, smuggling and black money
A planned economy with scarce foreign exchange made gold, foreign currency and imported goods valuable contraband. Smuggling and hawala flourished, and income was hidden from high tax rates as black money.
In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, a German passenger in transit carried thirty-four kilograms of gold hidden on his body. He did not know of a new notification under the foreign exchange law. The majority held that knowledge was not needed, because the object of the law would otherwise be defeated. In R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675, the Court upheld the Special Bearer Bonds scheme, which offered holders of black money immunity from disclosure. The scale of black money had by then become a policy problem in itself.
Wave 3: corruption in an expanding State
As the State took charge of planning, licensing and public enterprise, officials gained enormous discretion. The Santhanam Committee (1964) reported that corruption was spreading and organised. On its advice, possession of assets disproportionate to known income was made an offence in 1964, and the Central Vigilance Commission was set up.
In State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra Kaidalwar, (1981) 3 SCC 199, a forest officer on a small salary held assets far beyond it. The Court held that once disproportion is proved, the burden shifts to the accused to explain.
Wave 4: liberalisation, markets and banks
After 1991, licensing was relaxed and markets opened. New opportunities brought new crimes: securities fraud, bank and loan frauds, and the use of hawala channels to pay politicians and officials.
- In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226, diaries seized in the Jain hawala raids recorded payments to persons with the initials of senior politicians and officers. The Supreme Court had to monitor the investigation itself.
- In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, decided on 31 August 2012, group companies raised over Rs 24,000 crore from millions of investors through debentures. The Court held it a public issue within SEBI's powers.
- In Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli, decided on 23 February 2016, officers of a private bank were held to be public servants for the corruption law.
Wave 5: globalisation and technology
Cross-border finance, corporate groups and the internet produced the newest forms: money laundering, transnational corporate offences, cyber fraud and mass-scale adulteration.
- Corporate offenders. In Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2005) 4 SCC 530, a Constitution Bench held that a company can be prosecuted under the foreign exchange law and fined.
- Money laundering. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Court upheld the Prevention of Money-laundering Act's attachment, arrest and presumption powers.
- Cyber space. In Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC 18, the Court held that the Information Technology Act 2000, as a special law, governs offences it covers.
- Public health. In Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 699, milk adulterated with urea, detergent and caustic soda was found across several States.
Official recognition
The Law Commission's 29th Report (1966) considered adding a chapter on social and economic offences to the Penal Code. Its 47th Report (1972) recommended dispensing with mens rea, shifting the burden of proof and raising punishments. These reports marked the formal recognition that India faced a distinct category of crime.
The common causes of emergence
- Regulation creates new prohibitions, and every prohibition creates an incentive to evade it.
- Scarcity makes hoarding and black marketing profitable.
- Discretion in licences and contracts creates a market for bribes.
- Complexity of tax, company and financial law gives room for fraud.
- Technology and globalisation make concealment and cross-border flight easy.
- The nexus of business, politics and bureaucracy protects offenders.
- Social tolerance treats such conduct as clever business, not crime.
How the law adapted
The law answered with special techniques. It adopted strict liability (Mayer Hans George), reversed burdens (Kaidalwar) and corporate liability (Standard Chartered). It added special courts and attachment of proceeds (Vijay Madanlal). Each technique answers a difficulty of proof: the hidden mind, the hidden source of wealth, the faceless company and the vanishing money.
Assessment
Socio-economic crimes emerged in India alongside each stage of economic development. Controls produced hoarding and smuggling, and the expanding State produced corruption. Liberalisation produced financial fraud, and technology produced laundering and cyber crime. The pattern is that crime follows opportunity, and every new form of economic activity soon finds its own form of abuse. The law has kept changing to meet them, but enforcement still lags behind the ingenuity of offenders.
Conclusion. Socio-economic crimes are offences against the economy, public health and social welfare, born of the modern regulatory State. In India they emerged in five waves: scarcity and controls (Nathulal), then foreign exchange and black money (Mayer Hans George, R.K. Garg). Corruption in an expanding State came next (Santhanam Committee; Kaidalwar), followed by liberalisation (Vineet Narain, Sahara, Ramesh Gelli). Globalisation and technology came last (Standard Chartered, Vijay Madanlal). The Law Commission's 29th and 47th Reports recognised them, and the law adapted with strict liability, reversed burdens and attachment.
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.