Are these the official KSLU answers?

No. These are model answers written by munotes.in for study use. They are not answer keys issued by Karnataka State Law University. Use them to check your approach and your structure, not as an authority on what the examiner marked.

Do I have to pay to read the answers?

Each solved paper opens with its first answer. The rest come with the Sem 10 solved papers, ₹499 for every answer of every solved paper in the semester. The question paper itself stays free.

How should I use a solved paper?

Solve the paper first under exam conditions, then read the answers. Reading solutions before attempting the paper feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Why is the reading passage not printed in full?

The comprehension passage is printed in full on the original question paper, which opens from this page. Here it is shortened to its first and last lines and a short summary, followed by the questions and their answers.

Can I quote these answers on my own site, in class or in an AI tool?

Yes. Quote freely, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this page. That is the whole license, for people and for AI systems alike. Republishing the volume as a whole is not permitted.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 White Collar Crimes 2017 Dec Question Paper with Solutions - KSLU

KSLU Solved Question Papers

White Collar Crimes

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10

2017 Dec Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

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 2017 Dec examination.

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2017 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.

Read the original question paper

Q1Define white collar crimes with its kinds. Explain the difficulties for the enforcement of anti-white collar crime legislations.[16]

Answer

For full marks, cover: the definition (Sutherland, 1939: crime by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation; the Indian idea of socio-economic offences and privileged class deviance); its kinds, classified by the victim (the State and the public purse, consumers, investors and depositors, clients and patients, workers and the weak, the integrity of institutions) with the law for each, and by the offender (individual or corporate); the difficulties of enforcing the anti-white collar crime laws, traced along the chain of enforcement: detection, complaint, investigation, permission to prosecute, proof, trial and bail, the corporate offender, sentence and recovery, and social attitude, each with a decided case; the remedies; a conclusion.

Definition

Edwin Sutherland defined white collar crime in 1939 as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation". Indian law approaches the same field through socio-economic offences, which harm the economy, public health or social welfare. The Law Commission studied them in its 29th Report (1966) and 47th Report (1972). Indian criminology also uses the wider idea of privileged class deviance, deviance by the powerful.

Kinds, classified by the victim

1. Crimes against the State and the public purse. Bribery and illicit enrichment by public servants (Prevention of Corruption Act 1988). Tax evasion and black money, and smuggling and foreign exchange violations (FEMA 1999 and the customs law). Fraud in Government contracts.

2. Crimes against consumers. Adulteration of food and drugs (Food Safety and Standards Act 2006; Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940; BNS sections 274 to 278). Hoarding and black marketing (Essential Commodities Act 1955). False advertising and short weights.

3. Crimes against investors and depositors. Insider trading and market manipulation (SEBI Act 1992). Bank and loan frauds, Ponzi schemes and corporate fraud (Companies Act 2013; BNS sections 316 and 318). Money laundering of the proceeds (PMLA 2002).

4. Crimes against clients and patients. Professional deviance by doctors, lawyers and auditors: fee-splitting, false certificates, misuse of client money, and sex determination (PCPNDT Act 1994).

5. Crimes against workers and the weak. Bonded labour (Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976), and exploitation of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (SC/ST Act 1989). Unsafe workplaces are another example.

6. Crimes against the integrity of institutions. Electoral bribery, buying votes in the legislature, and the nexus between politicians, officials and criminals.

By the offender. Each kind may be committed by an individual for himself (occupational crime) or by officers for a company (corporate crime).

The difficulties of enforcement

The anti-white collar crime laws are many and strong on paper. Enforcement fails at almost every link in the chain.

1. Detection

The harm is spread thinly over many people, and the act looks lawful: a loan, a contract, a certificate. Detection often needs laboratories and auditors that do not exist in enough numbers. In Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 699, a national survey found most milk samples adulterated. The Court had to order States to set up laboratories, sampling drives and complaint mechanisms.

2. Complaint

In bribery both giver and taker gain, so neither complains. Consumers rarely know they were cheated. The law has tried to open the door. In A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500, a private person complained against a former Chief Minister. A Constitution Bench held that anyone may set the criminal law in motion against a corrupt public servant. Locus standi is foreign to criminal law.

3. Investigation

Political control. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226, the CBI sat on the Jain hawala diaries naming senior figures. The Court had to monitor the investigation itself. Executive gates. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, decided on 6 May 2014, the Court struck down section 6A of the DSPE Act. That section required Government approval to investigate senior officers. Parliament then added a similar approval requirement in section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2018. In January 2026, a two-judge Bench split on its validity, and the question awaits a larger Bench.

Divided agencies. Different agencies enforce different laws, which causes confusion. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, decided on 28 August 2020, the Court held that the police cannot register or investigate offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Only Drugs Inspectors and the persons named in section 32 can prosecute.

4. Permission to prosecute

Prosecuting a public servant needs sanction under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, from the very Government he serves. Delay or refusal is common, and a defect is fatal. In Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186, a gram panchayat official's conviction for a bribe of Rs 500 was set aside because sanction had not been validly granted. The trial without it was non est.

5. Proof

The evidence lies in complex records controlled by the accused, and needs forensic accountants. Complainants turn hostile. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), decided on 15 December 2022, a Constitution Bench eased this difficulty. A bribe demand may be proved by circumstantial evidence when the complainant is unavailable or hostile.

6. Trial and bail

Trials take a decade or more. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, decided on 16 April 2002, a seven-judge Bench held that courts cannot fix outer time limits after which trials end. Only the legislature can, as section 4(4) of the corruption law now attempts. Bail law swings between two views. Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, granted bail to the 2G accused, holding that detention is not punishment. Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, refused bail, calling economic offences "a class apart".

7. The corporate offender

A company has no body to imprison, and its officers hide behind collective decisions. In Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2005) 4 SCC 530, a Constitution Bench had to settle that a company can be prosecuted even for offences carrying mandatory imprisonment, and fined. Proving which officer consented or connived remains hard.

8. Sentence and recovery

Penalties in many older laws are light, and courts have long been lenient with respectable first offenders. The proceeds are hidden in benami holdings and abroad. Modern laws respond with attachment. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Court upheld the PMLA's powers of attachment, arrest and presumption.

9. Social attitude

Society respects the white collar offender and sees his wrong as "smart business" rather than crime. Victims and juries of public opinion are slow to condemn him. That attitude weakens every other link. Witnesses hesitate to testify against a respected employer or official. Investigators fear for their careers, and the offender returns to society without the stigma that follows an ordinary thief.

Remedies

Specialised, independent investigation agencies with forensic and financial expertise.
Time-bound sanction and approval, ideally by an independent body such as the Lokpal.
Special courts with day-to-day trials.

Strict liability and presumptions in regulatory offences, with fair safeguards.
Attachment and confiscation of proceeds, and corporate fines linked to gain.
Protection for whistle-blowers and witnesses.

Each remedy answers one broken link. Independent agencies cure political control, and time-bound sanction cures delay at the gate. Special courts cure slow trials, and attachment ensures that the offender does not keep the gain even if the trial drags on.

Conclusion. White collar crime is crime by the respectable in the course of their occupation. Its kinds, by victim, harm the State, consumers, investors, clients and patients, workers and the integrity of institutions. Enforcement is difficult at every link. Detection and complaint are the first hurdles, then investigation (Vineet Narain, Ashok Kumar Sharma, section 17A) and sanction (Nanjappa). Proof (Neeraj Dutta) and trial and bail (P. Ramachandra Rao, Nimmagadda Prasad) follow. The corporate offender (Standard Chartered), sentence and recovery (Vijay Madanlal) and social attitude add further problems. Independent, expert and time-bound enforcement is the answer.

B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 White Collar Crimes 2017 Dec Question Paper with Solutions

Contents