Opinion Piece: Debunking the Myth of the 'White-Collar Criminal' – Moving Beyond Traditional Static Crime Concepts

Recently, a murder case involving a university professor in Hsinchu shocked society, prompting a re-examination of a long-standing myth in criminology: is white-collar crime truly just a 'non-violent,' static form of crime? In 1940, American criminologist Edwin Sutherland introduced the concept of 'white-collar crime,' later defined in 1996 by the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) as crimes committed by individuals of high social and economic status or professional standing who, for personal gain, systematically exploit their occupational positions or opportunities. Examples include corruption, insider trading, embezzlement, official misconduct, and insurance fraud. Since such crimes are typically carried out through documents, contracts, financial instruments, the internet, or information manipulation, they have long been perceived as 'static' and 'non-violent' offenses.

However, this understanding is overly narrow. The term 'white-collar' describes the social and economic identity of the offender—someone respected or trusted—not the method of the crime itself. A person with a white-collar professional identity, high social standing, or a trusted role is not inherently limited to economic, financial, technological, or property-related static crimes. When conflicts involve family, emotions, interpersonal relationships, or other interests, even individuals with such elevated status may commit typical 'dynamic' violent crimes.

From a criminological perspective, it is crucial to distinguish between 'white-collar crime' (referring to the type of crime) and 'white-collar crime offender' (referring to the perpetrator with high status or professional identity). These two concepts are not synonymous. For instance, if the reported case of a university professor allegedly committing murder due to a personal dispute is considered, it may not fall under the traditional definition of white-collar crime, but it does reveal that white-collar individuals can indeed become perpetrators of violent crimes.

More notably, society often exhibits a 'halo effect' toward individuals with high education, high socioeconomic status, high income, good looks, strong public image, or professional expertise. The public tends to trust those perceived as authoritative, professional, or morally superior. Consequently, when such individuals commit violent crimes, the public is more shocked, thinking, 'This... doesn't seem like something they would do,' leading to intense media scrutiny and moral panic. However, there is no inherent exclusion between educational attainment, professional expertise, occupational status, and the potential for violent crime. Professional competence, social status, or career success reflect accumulated knowledge, technical skills, or business achievements, but they do not equate to emotional regulation, conflict resolution abilities, or psychological maturity.

Therefore, the most important lesson from such cases should not be a focus on the perpetrator's identity, but a reminder that crime risk is not determined by occupation, education, status, or social standing. Instead, it arises from the complex interplay of individual psychology, situational stress, escalating conflicts, and the availability of social support systems. As long as society clings to the stereotype that 'white-collar individuals do not use violence,' it risks underestimating the potential for violence among high-status or respected individuals and may impair judgment in violence prevention and crisis intervention. We must move beyond the traditional myth that 'white-collar = white-collar crime = non-violent (static) crime' to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of modern crime.

(The content of this article is based on currently available public information and media reports. The case is under investigation or trial by judicial authorities in accordance with the law. Until a court delivers a final verdict, the principle of presumption of innocence must be upheld. This note is provided for clarification.)

*The author is a university lecturer.