See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341509749

Types of crime: the three clusters

Chapter · May 2019

CITATIONS READS
0 1,136

1 author:

Zakariyya Muhammad Sarki

The Federal University Dutse
26 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Criminology View project

Sociology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zakariyya Muhammad Sarki on 01 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TYPES OF CRIME: THE THREE CLUSTERS1

Zakariyya Muhammad Sarki

Introduction

Crime is a social fact (Durkheim, 1895). Once there are social interactions, crime is bound to
exist (Glaeser et al., 1996). Generally speaking, it is seen as any behaviour which is contrary to
the collective agreement of members of a society as to what is acceptable and what can be
rejected, usually followed by sanction. The concept of crime is hence socially determined.
According to Durkheim (1895), it is a social product, determined by social conditions and
capable of being controlled only in social terms. Although crime is inherently bad, it is a normal
and inevitable product of collective life and social evolution in all societies, as a society exempt
from crime would necessitate a standardisation of moral concepts of all individuals, which is
neither possible nor desirable. Indeed, crime performs certain functions and plays a definite role
in social life ( Nte, 2012; Durkheim, 1895).

In most modern societies, the definition of crime is nonetheless tied with criminal law, which is a
codified arrangement of behaviours that are prescribed and proscribed in a particular society. It is
seen as an intentional act in violation of the criminal law, i.e. statutory and case law committed
without defence or excuse, and penalised by the state as a felony or misdemeanour (Tappan,
1947). In establishing the commission of a crime, the accused persons are presumed innocent
unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the concurrence of the criminal act
(called the actus reus) and the culpable mental state (called the mens rea). There should also be
harm, legality, causations, and prescribed punishment connected to the act (Foster, 2014; Loewy,
1987).

1
This text is a draft chapter of a book titled “Readings in Criminology”, and may be cited as: Sarki, Z.M
(2019). Types of crime: the three clusters. In Abdullahi, S.A (eds) Readings in Criminology
(forthcoming).

Lecturer, Department of Sociology, Federal University Dutse, Jigawa State, Nigeria. P.M.B 7156,
Dutse. Email: zakariyya.sarki@fud.edu.ng.
© 2019 The author.

1
From the definitions provided above, it can be understood that there can be different types of
crime. Thus, norms and criminal laws which are used to define crime differ from one society to
another; and, even in the same society, classification of a particular behaviour as crime may also
change over time due to the continuous evolution of society undergoes. Crime is, therefore,
relative. Hence, some typologies are used to distinguish among crime or criminal behaviours.
The essence of classifying crimes is to make them easily studied and understood (Siegel, 2010).

Types of crime

Due to the reasons stated and the differing perception of scholars, there are so many ways to
classify crime (Siegel, 2010). Some classifications use the severity of the offence to differentiate
among criminal behaviours; others use victims or target of the act, while some distinguish crimes
by using processes or medium of committing them as criteria. Consequently, crimes, in this
chapter, are grouped into three clusters; this is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Typology of crime

Cluster one Cluster two Cluster three

• Mala prohibita • Organised • Felony
• Mala in se • Corporate • Misdemeanour
• White-collar • Simple
• Cyber
• Victimless
• Conventional

Depending on the context, one cluster may be adopted to classify crimes because every cluster is,
to a reasonable extent, all-inclusive. Irrespective of a typology cluster considered for
classification, any crime can fall under one of the types indicated.

• Cluster one

This classification emanated from the classical studies on crime and criminal behaviour. It is
continued to be used in both historical and academic discourse on crimes. The categorisation in
other clusters may, however, be more relevant in applied criminology.

2
Mala in se and Mala prohibita

Mala prohibita are behaviours which are wrong because they are prohibited. They are acts
which are not inherently immoral but become so because their commission is expressly
forbidden by law. They may not have been seen as bad behaviours if not that the laws have
proscribed them. A crime mala in se, on the other hand, is wrong in itself; it is an act involving
illegality from the very nature of its existence. An act is a mala in se when it is inherently and
essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature and injurious in its consequence, irrespective of
whether or not it is being noticed or punished by the law of a state (Foster, 2014; Black et al.,
1990). In other words, crimes mala in se, are naturally bad even in the absence of any express
declaration as such by any law.

Laws prohibiting mala prohibita promote predictability and orderliness for citizens (Hagan,
2010). For instance, while a Nigerian who will travel to Ghana needs not to be told that murder
(not mala prohibita) is an offence there, he will need to know the items that are allowed to be
carried and used in Ghana. The laws against mala prohibita in the country has thus made the
Nigerian understand and even predict the way a traveller should behave in Ghana. The issue of
predictability and ensuring order among people is one of the latent social purposes behind
defining behaviours as mala prohibita (Davis, 2006). Accordingly, mala prohibita and mala in
se can be distinguished based on differentiating factor in ensuring deterrence derived from laws
defining the former.

Also, mala prohibita offences are more responsive to threats of legal sanction because
conformity is fully reliant on those formal sanctions than when there are none (Foster, 2014;
Andenaes, 1966). For example, driving with a valid driver's license would not have been
observed if there were no legal sanctions attached to driving without the license (a supposed
mala prohibita behaviour). It is the prohibition that makes people drive with the license. Was
there no legal sanctions, people may decide to be driving freely without a valid license, and this
may not necessarily attract public outcry unless if it brings about, for instance, accidents and
losses of life. Examples of mala prohibita include gambling, prostitution, vagrancy, disorderly
conduct, public intoxication, possession of marijuana, and over-speeding.

3
Conversely, offences mala in se hardly need legal sanctions to forestall widespread violations
(Foster, 2014; Travers, 1995). These crimes are so reprehensible that ordinary people agree on
their seriousness and would continue to do so even in the absence of codified laws. For example,
incest, being a mala in se offence, is probably not very responsive to legal control (Robinson,
1978), because even in the absence of legal prohibition, few would violate this norm. In other
words, even if criminal law does not proscribe incest (a mala in se crime), a few numbers of
individuals may engage in it, since it is naturally imperfect and unacceptable. Hence, mala in se
crimes have universal definition; most of them, if not all, are seen as crimes in almost all
societies. Like mala prohibita, mala in se include offences against individuals and property and
can also include behaviors that threaten entire community. Examples of mala in se are arson,
rape, theft, murder and incest.

Although any crime can be classified as either mala prohibita or mala in se (Davis, 2006), some
scholars (see, Newman & Wolfgang, 2017; Duff, 2002; Wolfe, 1981; Teevan, 1977) have argued
that the dichotomy between the two classes of crime should be abolished. The reason being that
mala in se offences are sometimes regarded as mala prohibita and vice versa, for example, if the
severity of the crime is used as a yardstick of differentiation. In a research conducted in the
United States of America, theft, burglary and possession of arms were regarded as less serious
(apparently mala prohibita) by the public. At the same time, smoking, which may be seen as a
lesser offence, was believed to be serious - mala in se (Davis, 2006). If the traditional
characteristic of mala in se of being more apprehensive than mala prohibita is to be considered
in respect of these crimes, then theft, burglary, and possession of arms would have been mala in
se, not mala prohibita.

• Cluster two
This cluster is commonly used within the mainstream criminology and sociology of deviance. It
uses the nature of the offender and the victim or target of the act as criteria in classifying crimes.
The popular types of an offence under this cluster are organized crime, corporate crime, white-
collar crime, cybercrime, victimless and conventional crimes.

4
Organised crime
Finding a comprehensive definition of organised crime is very difficult as it is defined differently
by governments, individuals and other entities (Wright, 2013). However, it can be seen as an
organised conspiratorial criminal structure that is successful due to its use of fear, corruption and
violence. Whatever definition one prepares, the nature and scope of organised crime is dynamic
and ranges from the most ruthless crimes such as murder to buying illegal products and services.
The significant difference between individual and organised crime is the term 'organised' or
'organisation' (Galeotti, 2014). Even though all kinds of crime may require a sort of organisation
before they are committed, the nature of organised crime is one that involves structure like a
typical modern organisation where a group of people cooperate under a hierarchical structure to
achieve particular goals. Accordingly, organised crime has the following characteristics:
1. The principle of objective: a definite purpose of the organisation; for example, drug
business, terrorism or gambling.
2. Rules and regulation: clearly stated rules and regulations, including prescribed reward
and sanction.
3. A span of control: a limited number of people controlled by a supervisor.
4. Unit of command: a superior to whom one is directly responsible.
5. Principle of definition: clearly defining authority and responsibility.
6. Insulation: members have direct contact with their immediate boss only.
7. Pyramidal structure: orders flow down the hierarchy, and important decisions are made at
the top.
8. Specialisation: members of organised crime usually have an individual area of
specialisation (Wright, 2013; Anderson, 1995).

As with legitimate organisations, no two organised crimes are exactly the same; each group
evolves in its manner. Several models of organised crimes have been developed, which can be
used to distinguish among its different structures. For example, the UNODC (2000) survey
report of more than forty organised crimes from different parts of the world has identified five
models of organised crimes. These models are standard hierarchy, regional hierarchy, clustered
hierarchy, core group and criminal network (McCusker, 2006). According to this report, any
organised crime must have been a model of one of these structures. However, discussions and

5
application of the UNODC model have been limited among academics, perhaps, due to the lack
of specific criteria used to make the classification.

Bureaucratic model (Cressey, 2017) and Hierarchical model (Albanese, 2014) of organised crime
are two models that have shared features but developed independently from the UN study. Both
models also have characteristics which are reflected in the UN typology. The bureaucratic or
hierarchical model sees organised crimes as operating under an extensive division of labour, with
a supreme leader at the top of the hierarchy and different levels of subordinates, each with a
defined role on the ladder (Abadinsky, 2012). Albanese (2011) describes this model of organised
crime as being similar to a government structure; illegal activities are conducted with the
approval of superiors and controlled by "higher-ups". They are usually governed by a code of
conduct which is strictly adhered to by the group's members. The characteristics of these models
are identical to some attributes under the UN's standard hierarchy. These characteristics include
having a leader, defined hierarchy, strong internal discipline and social or ethnic identity.

There is also Abadinsky's (2012) patrimonial model of organised crimes. The model focuses on
the relationships between families, friends and patrons. The patrimonial model assumed that
organised crimes are mono-ethnic due to its emphasis on recruiting members from family and
friends. This model is a characteristic of traditional societies which place a strong emphasis on
relationships of trust and emotional ties (Abadinsky 2012). An example of a patrimonial system
is the Sicilian Mafia who has traditionally recruited new members from family, relatives and
friends (Balsamo, 2006).

Williams (2010) has also developed a typology based on the network structure of organised
crimes, where he identified four types of networks: directed network, mesh network,
transactional network and flux network. The difference among these four types of organised
crimes structure is in the leadership, key players and organisation.

• Directed network: formed and directed by a group of "core organisers", who acts as a
"steering mechanism" to manage and coordinate the system as a whole for a specific
purpose.

6
 • Mesh network: These are networks of "decentralised and self-organising" actors, who
perform specific tasks and transact directly with other members without the need for a
core body. This type of network is best characterised by horizontal rather than vertical
relationships between actors.
• Transactional network: These networks rely heavily on brokers and middlemen who play
critical roles at each stage of a "transaction". They are usually found in drug trafficking
groups. A directed network can be part of a transactional network.
• Flux network: These networks are highly unstable, small and have little established
structure as a result of its shapeless nature. There is limited trust among members, and
they appear to disband more easily compared to other network types. Groups operating
in these networks usually cooperate for specific criminal activities or single projects
(Williams 2010:69).

Corporate crime

Corporate crimes are crimes committed either by a business entity, corporation or by individuals
that may be identified with a corporation or business entity and acting on its behalf. In other
words, the act of individuals need not be authorised by their organisation, provided they were
exercising customary powers on behalf of the corporation. Thus, to a substantial degree, the
crime of the corporation is interwoven with the acts of its officials. Consequently, it would seem
reasonable to utilise a corporate crime to impeach a corporate official's credibility if the official
is connected to the crime, as corporate crime carries with it elements of white-collar crime. The
phrase "corporate crime" is traced to criminologists Marshall Clinard and Richard Quinney when
in 1973 they called for a distinction among types of white-collar crimes. The authors identified
corporate crime and occupational crime as general varieties of white-collar crime (Clinard &
Quinney, 1973). See also Gobert and Punch (2003), and Clinard (2011).

Some people could argue that corporate offending creates far more harm than traditional
offending. This assertion could be true. Imagine a situation whereby a particular manufacturing
industry located close to a residential area emits poisonous gas as a waste product out of its
production process, which if inhaled can kill a person within a few hours. The consequences of

7
this action may not be compared to that of a criminal who steals a solar panel used to supply the
neighbourhood with light.

Despite its apparent consequences, the response to corporate offending tends to involve reactive
responses with minor penalties; unlike the reaction to many traditional offending where law
enforcement responses tend to be aggressive and with hard penalties. Corporate crimes are
generally dealt with by civil and administrative laws with sanctions such as fines but not prison
(Payne, 2016) unless there are elements of white-collar that will be treated and prosecuted
differently. Examples of corporate crimes include a violent act of an organisation against its
workers or consumers, corporate pollution, price-fixing, false advertising, and tax evasion,
among others.

White-collar crimes

These are illegal acts committed by individuals of high social status for personal gain but during
legitimate occupational activity. The most common white-collar crime is when an employee
steals from the employer or cheats customers. It may also be a situation where a government
official uses his office to obtain personal benefits. Although Sutherland was believed to have
been the first person to use the term "white collar crime" (Clinard, 2011; Geis & Jesilow, 1982),
his definition has been criticised due to its restrictive scope. According to him, white-collar
crime is a crime in the upper class, composed of respectable or at least respected business and
professional men (Sutherland, 1940).

By this definition, a supposed white-collar crime committed by middle or lower cadre employee
is not a white-collar. Also, women, no matter how high they are placed in an organisation, cannot
be said to have committed the crime even if they did, since the definition did not include women.
Defining white-collar crime has, therefore, been very problematic that having one acceptable
definition proved to be difficult. Nonetheless, what is essential in the definitions is the fact that
an employee has committed illegal behaviour in the course of his or her occupation for personal
gain.

8
Some characteristics have been identified with white-collar crimes (Geis & Jesilow, 1982); these
include:

• Invincibility: White-collar crimes are relatively invisible and can be concealed more
easily because the offenders are legitimately present at the scene, i.e. the organisation.
• Abuse of trust: since they are committed during an occupation, they involve an abuse of
the trust inherent in an occupational role.
• Insider' knowledge and expertise: offences are made possible by the use of some form of
technical or insider knowledge, which may be an awareness of how to use organisational
routines to conceal offending. It may also involve the abuse of professional, scientific or
financial 'expertise'.
• Complex: because the crimes involve insider and expertise, the offences turn out to be
complicated, making the extent, duration and details of offending challenging to
determine.
• Organised: many white-collar crimes are highly organised and involve several
participants with differing degrees of responsibility.
• Diffusion of responsibility: in many cases, determining who is responsible is difficult
because of the distribution of responsibility in committing the crime, as responsibility for
particular tasks is delegated thereby giving rooms for participants to blame others up or
down the hierarchy.
• Different patterns of victimisation: Determining the precise victims and effects of white-
collar crime are not direct. Corruption, for example, involves exchanges of money or
favours, in which the visible element of the crime is the abuse of trust and the effect is on
the legitimacy of institutions such as business, public service or political organisations.
• Lack of intent: in many white-collar crimes, there is an apparent lack of a plan,
particularly where diffusion of responsibility is involved. This means that the moral
element so crucial to the definition of crime is absent.
• Low rate of detection and prosecution: the invisibility and complexity of white-collar
offences make them difficult to detect, making the attribution of responsibility and
obtaining evidence to prosecute difficult as well.

9
 • Lenient sentences: many offenders receive what are seen as lenient sentences, which are
related to the absence of intent, lack of direct victimisation and the ambiguous criminal
status of offences. (Geis & Jesilow, 1982).

Cybercrime

Cybercrime, also known as computer crime, is a broad category of crime that includes a wide
and growing variety of crimes involving computers (Winslow & Zhang, 2008). It can be defined
as any violation of a federal or state computer crime law. Cybercrime is generally seen as
consisting of five general categories (Siegel, 2010; Winslow & Zhang, 2008). These categories
are:

• Theft of services; that is, unauthorised use of computer facilities mainly offline to
process information.
• Illegal use of computer or internet data for personal gain.
• Improper use of computers for numerous types of financial and other benefits, e.g.
forgery and counterfeiting of documents.
• Using a computer to damage another person's asset, for example, planting a
damaging virus to destroy data (Malware).
• Theft of software through unlawful copying and use.

From this categorisation, it could be understood that computer facilities are used to commit
crimes in four different instances (Carter IV & Perry, 2004).

• Computer as the target: In this type of cybercrime, somebody's computer is the

target, because it carries certain vital information which can be used to sabotage
or destroy one's personality or organisation—for example, customers list, medical
records, personal history.
• Computer as the means of committing the crime: In this category, the processes of
the computer system, not the content of the computer files, facilitate the crime. In
this, the criminal manipulates the normal processes of the computers, to have
illegitimate access to other facilities. Crimes under this category include
fraudulent use of ATM Cards, illegal transfer of funds or stocks, phishing,
hacking and child pornography.

10
 • Computer as incidental to other crimes: In this category of cybercrime the
computer is not essential and necessary, but its presence or facilities help the
crime to occur faster and easier. Crimes in this category include money laundry,
unlawful banking transactions and many other crimes like murder.
• Hardware and software as target: The prevalence of computer and particular
micro computers generate a new version of cybercrime. In this type of
cybercrime, offences like software piracy, copyright violation of computer
programmes and counterfeit hardware are included.

In Nigeria, the Cybercrime Prohibition Act (2015) has stated cybercrimes to include cyber
terrorism, child pornography and related offences, cyberstalking, cybersquatting, racist and
xenophobic offences. Others are manipulation of ATM/POS terminals, phishing, spamming,
spreading of a computer virus, use of a fraudulent device or attached e-mails and websites. Also,
dealing in a card of another, breach of confidence by service providers, importation and
fabrication of e-Tools, fraudulent issuance of e-Instructions (See Sections 5-36 of the Act for a
comprehensive listing).

Globally, and specifically in Nigeria, cybercrimes can be successfully prosecuted in a court of

law only if relevant evidence is presented. Because of their nature, the relevant evidence required
to prosecute various types of cybercrimes are mostly in electronic form, which must also be
recognised by the law for them to be tendered and considered.

Victimless crime

Victimless crimes (public order crimes or crimes without victims) are the willing exchange by
adults of strongly demanded but legally proscribed goods or services; or the commission of acts
proscribed by law in which no third party is directly harmed or involved (Yi, 2008; Kadish,
1983). A characteristic feature of such acts is that since no third party is hurt, no one has an
immediate interest in complaining to the law enforcement agents and presenting evidence against
the culprits. Also, such offences typically have low visibility. They are committed as far from

11
public view as the participants can manage to hid, and it is only as a result of prearranged police
surveillance or even entrapment that the crimes can be detected at all (Yi, 2008; Ellis, 1988).

The word "victimless" has made many scholars questioning the acceptability of "victimless
crime" as a concept, making it to become unpopular. The argument is that there has not been a
crime without a victim. Even some of the most cited examples of victimless crime, like
prostitution, substance abuse and pornography, are not without victims. In these crimes, the
offender is usually a victim, in addition to other individuals who are also victims but may not be
seen as directly affected by the acts, for instance, the significant others of the offender.

One may argue that a prostitute could have legally married, maintain her integrity and protect
herself, her client and society the risk of having and transmitting diseases, rather than being
prostitute. Drug addicts also could use their time to engage in more positive activities that can
improve their lives, their close relatives and society. Thus, their engagement in substance abuse
makes them waste time and energy, which could at the end of the day make the society to spend
a lot in rehabilitating them. Hence, Siegel (2010) believes the term 'victimless' is misleading and
that the 'public order crimes' should be used to describe these types of crimes instead.

Conventional crime

Conventional crimes are crimes that are believed to be common and more visible in society.
They are the offences which the attention and activities of law enforcement agents, especially the
police, are directed most of the time towards addressing them. These types of crime range from
serious to lesser crimes and can be perpetrated on properties or individuals. Because of their
commonality and being committed by less privileged in the society, they are easily prosecuted
and constitute a large percentage in crime statistics. For this chapter, all crimes that are not
among the types discussed above – i.e. all crimes that are not corporate, white-collar, victimless,
organised, or cybercrime - are categorised as conventional crimes. Examples of conventional
crime include theft, rape, murder, burglary, larceny, arson, assault, battery, robbery, domestic
violence and hate crimes.

12
 • Cluster three:

In many countries, a codified book of the law, which is usually called Criminal law, identifies
and creates a general typology of crime that can be used to distinguish among types of offence
based on certain criteria. In Nigeria, offences are classified into three under the Criminal Code
Act, which is a criminal law being applied in the Southern part of the country. Although crimes
are created, and punishment provided thereof in the Penal Code, which is an Islamic criminal law
being applied in the Northern part of the country, there is no clear classification of crimes,
however, under the Code. Thus, the type of offences provided by Section 3 of the Criminal Code
Act, which is based on the severity of punishment, is as follows:

Felony is an offence which is declared by law to be a felony or is punishable, without proof of

previous conviction, with death or with imprisonment for three years or more. Therefore, it is
either the law has classified the offence as a "felony" its punishment is death or imprisonment for
a term of three years or more.

A misdemeanour is any offence which is declared by law to be a misdemeanour or is punishable

by imprisonment for not less than six months, but less than three years. The yardstick is whether
the offence is labelled as "misdemeanour" by the law or the prescribed punishment is not less
than six months but less than three years, i.e. from 6 months – 2 years and11 months.

Simple offences: All offences other than felonies and misdemeanours are simple offences. In
other words, any offence that attracts imprisonment for less than six months is simple. It should
be mentioned that, since cluster three classification of crime is based on Nigeria's criminal law
(precisely, the Criminal Code Act), it is relative. It may, therefore, be different from
categorisations made under the criminal law of other countries.

Conclusion

Crime, as it is shown, is a complex and relative phenomenon, in that no single definition and
typology can be universally acceptable. The relativity of crime made it possible for different
classifications. This chapter presents three clusters of crime typology. Consequently, any group

13
can be used in distinguishing one crime from another. That could depend on convenience and the
context under which the categorisation is being made. It should be stated that while in each
cluster, the crime categories are believed to be mutually exclusive, one may find a situation
where a particular type of crime is associated with another. For example, prostitution can be
found within organised crime; sexual offences within the white-collar crime, and so on. As it
also mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, the whole essence of crime typology is to allow
for easy understanding, assessment and management of the act.

References
Abadinsky, H. (2012). Organised crime: Cengage Learning.
Albanese, J. S. (2014). Organised crime in our times: Routledge.
Andenaes, J. (1966). The general preventive effects of punishment. University of Pennsylvania
Law Review, 114(7), 949-983.
Anderson, A. (1995). Organised crime, mafia and governments. The economics of organised
crime, 33-53.
Balsamo, A. (2006). Organised crime today: the evolution of the Sicilian mafia. Journal of
Money Laundering Control, 9(4), 373-378.
Black, H. C., Nolan, J. R. & Nolan-Haley, J. M. (1990) St. Paul, Minn.: West.
Carter IV, A. J. & Perry, A. (2004). Computer crimes. American Criminal Law Review, 41, 313.
Clinard, M. B. & Quinney, R. (1973). Corporate criminal behaviour. Marshall B. Clinard and
Richard Quinney, Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology. Revised edition. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cressey, D. (2017). Theft of the nation: The structure and operations of organised crime in
America: Routledge.
Clinard, M., & Yeager, P. (2011). Corporate crime (Vol. 1). Transaction Publishers.
Davis, M. S. (2006). Crimes mala in se: An equity-based definition. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 17(3), 270-289.
Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.[DG].
Ellis, L. (1988). The victimful-victimless crime distinction, and seven universal demographic
correlates of victimful criminal behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(3),
525-548.
Foster, M.L (2014). Philip Schofield, Jeremy Bentham and nineteenth‐century English
jurisprudence 1 , The Journal of Legal History, 10.1080/01440369108531028, 12, 1, (58-
88), (1991).
Galeotti, M. (2014). Global crime today: the changing face of organised crime: Routledge.
14
 Geis, G. & Jesilow, P. (1982). On white-collar crime: LexingtonBooks.
Glaeser, E. L., Sacerdote, B. & Scheinkman, J. A. (1996). Crime and social interactions. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(2), 507-548.
Gobert, J., & Punch, M. (2003). Rethinking corporate crime. Cambridge University Press.
Hagan, F. E. (2010). Crime types and criminals: Sage.
Kadish, S. H. (1983). Encyclopedia of crime and justice, Volume 4: Free Press, 1983.
Loewy, A. H. (1987). Criminal law in a nutshell: West Publishing Company.
McCusker, R. (2006). Transnational organised cybercrime: distinguishing threat from reality.
Crime, law and social change, 46(4-5), 257-273.
Nte, N. D. (2012). An Evaluation of the Challenges of Forensic Investigation and Unsolved
Murders in Nigeria. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies: AJCJS, 6(1/2),
143.
Payne, B. K. (2016). White-collar crime: The essentials: SAGE Publications.
Robinson, R. W. (1978). A model system for world crime statistics. International Journal of
Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 2(1), 61-69.
Schur, E.M. (1965). Crimes without victims: Deviant behaviour and public policy: Abortion,
homosexuality, drug addiction: Prentice-Hall Saddle River, NJ.
Siegel, L. (2010). Criminology: the core: Nelson Education.
Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American sociological review, 5(1), 1-12.
Tappan, P. W. (1947). Who is the Criminal? American Sociological Review, 12(1), 96-102.
Treevan Jr, JJ (1977). Deterrent effects of punishment for breaking and entering and theft.
Canadian Journal of Criminology & Corrections, 19, 121.
Travers, M. L. (1995). Mistake of Law in Mala Prohibita Crimes. The University of Chicago Law
Review, 62(3), 1301-1331.
Winslow, R. W. & Zhang, S. (2008). Criminology: A global perspective: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Wolfe, NT. (1981). Mala in se. Criminology,19 (1), 131-144.
Wright, A. (2013). Organised crime: Routledge.
Yi, X. I. A. O. (2008). Defining the Concept of the Victimless Crime in View of Criminal
Policy. Journal of Capital Normal University (Social Sciences Edition), 6.

15

View publication stats