Women: White-Collar Offending and Victimization

In the 1940s, Edwin Sutherland’s work that brought public and scholarly attention to white-collar crime excluded the role women played in this unexamined area of corporate and occupational misconduct. Sutherland focused on men in powerful positions of trust who committed crimes. His position was understandable because women were in no position to compete with men as captains of industries and corporate executives. Women achieved increased presence in the public sphere and higher-level job positions after the passage of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1972 applied Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and national origin in the workplace. Although the landscape of gender and jobs changed during this time period, few women appeared to be involved in white-collar crimes. Additionally, research on women, gender, and crime remained scarce. Finally, in 1975, scholars began to recognize the increased number of women in criminal arenas and started the discourse on women and white-collar crime, despite the infrequent number of incidents.

This essay offers a comprehensive examination of women’s participation as offenders and victims in white-collar crime. Section I discusses the early background and definitional issues that relate to women’s roles in corporate and occupational crime. Section II reviews societal structures and mores that created and continue to perpetuate the gender gap in elite offending through limited opportunity and societal expectations of femininity. Section III explores the nature of female corporate and professional deviance. Section IV shifts attention to victimization of women and, in particular, the unique circumstances associated with reproductive drugs and medical procedures that are linked to a higher number of incidents. Finally, Section V explores possible future areas for research.

Historically, notions of both traditional and white-collar crime were synonymous with male criminality. Consequently, there was little cause to explore the nature of female crime. In the case of white-collar crime, depending on one’s accepted definition, it can easily be argued that only a handful of women are involved. If white-collar crime, as described by Sutherland (1949), is limited to a high-status person in a position of trust during the course of one’s occupation (e.g., corporate executives, bank owners, doctors, lawyers), then women are likely to be excluded as they continue to vie for high-level careers. Traditionally, women have held lower-status jobs that limited their participation in crimes such as insider trading, antitrust violations, and Ponzi schemes. In contrast, if white-collar criminality were viewed from a broader perspective, then all women who are employed in positions that allow access to financial frauds would be included in the definitions and discussions (e.g., real estate agents, bank tellers, bookkeepers, office managers). The scenario then changes to include a high number of female white-collar offenders. Whether or not a position of power and authority is an essential element of corporate and professional offending is arguable, and many scholars include middle-class and working-class persons as white-collar crime offenders (Shapiro 1990; Weisburd, Wheeler, Waring, and Bode, 1991; Vaughan 1992).

The definition and range of white-collar offenses and offenders remain controversial. Many scholars adhere, at least in part, to Sutherland’s (1949) definition that requires the elements of high status, trust, and occupational power that focused on offenders in large corporations or professional positions such as politicians. Sutherland, however, muddied the definitional waters when he included thefts by employees, several types of consumer fraud, and misdeeds by doctors (Sutherland, 1949; Geis, 1982). Many of the definitional conundrums develop from distinguishing offenders and offenses, and an inherent desire to have tidy categories of who does what and how. Despite years of unending debate over what constitutes white-collar crime, the concept remains, as noted by Gilbert Geis (1982, p. 15), “broad and indefinite.” In later work, Geis (2012) ultimately indicated that quibbles over exact definitions were, perhaps, fruitless, although he continued to advocate, like Sutherland, that white-collar crime was best conceived as the abuse of power by persons in high places who are provided with the opportunity to commit elite acts of deviance. Geis also proposed that concise semantics and restrictive definitions risk inhibiting sociological imagination, and future research should continue to evolve unrestricted. This latter position is perhaps the most logical approach to exploring women and white-collar crime.

White-collar crime encompasses many areas of economic wrongdoing and by some standards might be limited, for example, to large corporate financial schemes, bribery, corruption, insider trading, securities fraud, and price fixing (Steffensmeier, Schwartz, and Roche 2013). White-collar crime in a broader definitional sense may include what are seen as less profitable endeavors such as embezzlement, asset misappropriation, or consumer fraud (although billions of dollars are lost annually in these simple and complex larceny schemes). Acceptance of a broad definition of white-collar crime includes high-status and middle-class offenders (and in some cases juveniles) who are not in prestigious corporate positions but still commit fiduciary crimes outside the realm of traditional street crime (Weisburd, Wheeler, Waring, and Bode 1991; Benson and Moore 1992; Holtfreter 2005; Pontell and Rosoff 2009). While Sutherland’s definition of white-collar crime is criticized for being vague and arbitrary, realizing that white-collar crime is a fluid concept composed of nonspecific terms for a wide variety of illegal and unethical activities committed by institutions and individuals trusted with fiduciary and professional responsibilities is critical to understanding the many unique aspects (Friedrichs 2010). More to the point, narrow definitions of white-collar crime have resulted in the exclusion of gender in the discourse and hampered attempts to examine and explain this gap between offenders and offenses.

Hazel Croall (2008 , p. 26) presented the definitive question related to female participation in white-collar crime: “Might women at the top become more aggressive, dishonest, and prepared to sacrifice morality in the single-minded pursuit of promotion and profit?” The answer to Croall’s question was first addressed in the seminal work of Freda Adler (1975, p. 169):

In the future a greater proportion of wealth and power will pass through feminine hands, and almost all of it will be wielded responsibly. But it would be an unrealistic reversion to quixotic chivalry to believe that, for better or worse, women will be any more honest than men.

In the mid-1970s, scholars such as Adler and Rita James Simon argued that as women left the home to work in the public sphere, their opportunities to commit white-collar crime would increase. Moving from a bank teller position, for example, to a bank owner would allow women the knowledge, information, and position to more readily access more of other people’s money in an illegal manner. Simon believed “women were no more honest, no more decent, and no more moral than men” and that the low rates of white-collar offending among women were a result of fewer opportunities (personal communication, 2007).

The idea of the liberation hypothesis, often linked to Adler’s writings, has received a great deal of attention in scholarly studies and vitriolic backlash among feminist groups in the 1970s and 1980s. The hypothesis suggested that as women entered the workforce and became top business executives, they would take advantage of illegal activities and “do gender” by using masculine attributes. The resulting kerfuffle over Adler and Simon’s predictions of the types of crimes women might commit in the future, however, was mistakenly grounded in ideas surrounding liberation rather than opportunity. Siegel (2014) noted that transnational organized crime often associated with wealth, power, and freedom seduces women into a “criminal gender competition” with men as a means to improve their economic situations and afford better lifestyles. These same factors (i.e., seduction and competition) may influence women who hold positions conducive to committing white-collar crime.

A significant aspect of who commits what crime, especially in the white-collar milieu, is related to opportunity. According to many scholars, the most accurate predictor of white-collar crime is opportunity (Sparks 1979; Albanese 1995; Benson and Simpson 2009). The opportunity to commit crime, particularly white-collar crime, varies according to occupation, position, and gender (Coleman 1989). Perceptions that women belong in the private sphere as nurturing mothers and societal expectations of femininity, although now less conspicuous, continues to underlie gender gaps in the workplace. Women are less likely to be in positions that afford the opportunity to engage in large-scale corporate scandal, but they arguably are more than capable of committing such acts.

The glass ceiling, a term used to describe the limited opportunities for women in the workplace, is tied directly to marginalization and continued patriarchal control of the marketplace (Becker and McCorkel 2011). The intersection of race and gender has created a more impenetrable situation, often referred to as the concrete ceiling, that further subordinates African Americans and other minority women. Additionally, corporate and professional positions are considered “man’s work.” Maleness, as noted by Croall (2008), is taken for granted in the business world. The initial assertions of increased potential for female criminality remain controversial, despite increasing arrest and incarceration rates for fraud and embezzlement. Women have, in many cases, hit a glass ceiling in the workplace and in criminal opportunities, although many people believe that the ceiling is shattered. In other words, the gender gap in masculine-dominated professions continues to limit female participation in white-collar crime.

An increased number of women in corporate and powerful positions would predict a higher level of involvement in white-collar crime. Some research shows that women commit white-collar crimes that reflect their employment status (Croall 2001; Weisburd, Waring, and Chayet 2001; Davies 2003a). Gender disparity in employment continues in pay, position, and power. In the federal judiciary, for example, approximately 50 women hold positions out of the 163 active judges on the federal courts of appeals, and only 4 of the total 112 justices on the US Supreme Court have been female (National Women’s Law Center 2013). Women in academic positions are underrepresented at almost 30 percent. Women of color employed in academic positions account for only 4 percent of professors above the assistant rank. Almost half of all law school graduates are female, but only 15 percent are equity partners and 5 percent are managing partners in law firms. These dismal figures also hold true for women who work in the corporate world. Only 10 percent of the chief executive officers in the top 10 banking companies are women. Fortune 500 companies included only 13 percent female representation as members of the board of directors, with 3 percent of those being women of color (Lennon 2013). Even as late as 2013, women were more likely to be bookkeepers, accountants, and auditing clerks (90 percent), according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The gender gap in employment and crime is far from closed. Compared to men, women are more likely to work in low-paying jobs that offer less status. The pathways to white-collar crimes for women, as suggested by Croall (2008), may indeed be based on need rather than greed. Yet, arguments that women commit crime as a result of poverty, abuse, and financial hardships are debatable, particularly in economic crimes (Davies 2003a). Theorists and scholars, on one hand, have argued that women may commit crime for the same reasons as men: to achieve material gain (Carlen 1992; Davies 2003b; Dodge 2009). Some scholars, on the other hand, assert that women experience higher levels of social control, which limits their criminal activities (Hagan, Simpson, and Gillis 1987). Additionally, women may be less likely to be risk takers, and pathways to criminal behavior may differ for women (Becker and McCorkel 2011). One explanation, as noted by Becker and McCorkel, is that male-dominated workplaces stifle opportunities for women to commit crime, and females continue to be marginalized by “old boy” networks.

Many researchers have noted an increase in the amount of white-collar and financial crime committed by women (Albanese 1993; Simon and Ahn Redding 2005; Dodge, 2009). In 1986, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a special report on tracking white-collar crime offenders (Manson 1986). Donald Manson defined white-collar crime as “nonviolent crime for financial gain committed by means of deception” (Manson 1986, p. 2). Of note was the finding that compared to other criminal offenses, females represented a higher proportion of arrests for white-collar crimes (i.e., forgery/counterfeiting, fraud, embezzlement).

Other scholars have discovered that impoverishment, societal restrictions, and workplace marginalization contribute to the increase in the number of women engaging in nonviolent property crime and drug abuse (Belknap 2007). Michael Levi (1994) found that women were more likely to engage in check and social security frauds. David Weisburd, Elin Waring, and Ellen Chayet (2001) noted that high-status and middle-class offenders were men, although women accounted for about 50 percent of the offenders for embezzlement in lower-status occupations such as bookkeeper, bank teller, and administrative assistant. Overall, crime rates show that women are engaged in what have traditionally been labeled gendered crimes such as check kiting, prostitution, and shoplifting. In fact, the early solution to differentiate male and female fraud was to label women who committed financial offenses as pink-collar criminals (Daly 1989).

Kathleen Daly’s 1989 research stands out as a seminal study of the involvement of women in white-collar crime. The research employed a dataset of cases from federal district courts from 1976 to 1978. Crimes committed by the defendants included tax fraud, postal fraud, credit fraud, false claims, and bribery. Daly examined bank embezzlement, postal fraud, credit fraud, and false claims and found that only a small number of women were involved in corporate fraud. These findings, although less than definitive, appear to hold true almost 35 years later (Steffensmeier, Schwartz, and Roche 2013). Further examinations of gender and occupational fraud reveal fewer differences between men and women. Kristy Holtfreter (2005) analyzed 1,142 incidents of asset misappropriation, corruption, and fraudulent statements, 47 percent of which involved women. The findings suggested that women were more likely to engage in asset misappropriation compared to crimes associated with fraudulent statements. Additionally, no gender differences were found between asset misappropriation and corruption; that is, the crimes were equally likely to be committed by males and females. Sally Haantz (2002) reported an increased involvement of women and noted that in 2000, of the 1,016 federal prisoners incarcerated for white-collar crime, nearly one in four was a woman. The gender gap, however, is still readily apparent in white-collar offending.

One explanation of the lower participation is that women in business may have a higher standard of ethical behavior. Whereas men are more self-focused, women tend to be less selfish (Dollar, Fisman, and Gatti 2001). Previous research shows a wide variety of positive female behaviors related to helping others, making ethical decisions, showing integrity, and assisting others with more generosity (Eagly and Crowley 1986; Reiss and Mitra 1988; Eckel and Grossman 1998; Ones and Viswesvaran 1998). David Dollar and colleagues, for example, explored government corruption and found that higher female participation was associated with lower levels of wrongdoing. Speculations that women are less likely to take the same type of risks as male colleagues have been offered to explain better behavior. Other research, however, shows that female board members are not necessarily opposed to risk-averse decision making that may result in illegal behavior. One’s position in an organization often determines one’s access and means for committing white-collar crime. If women are unable to rise to high-status positions in a male hierarchy, they will be less likely to participate in large-scale corporate or political frauds (Friedrichs 2010; Steffensmeier, Schwartz, and Roche 2013).

Women remain underrepresented in white-collar crime, but increases suggest this may change as opportunities expand (Simpson 1989). Hanna Rosin (n.d.) argued that the fluidity of gender behavior will result in higher participation: “As women slowly gain power, they slowly start to behave like the powerful, meaning they become more corruptible,” and once reaching the top we should expect “some Michelle Milken dazzling us with pretty new junk bonds.”

When women commit crime, the incidents usually are “less serious, less violent, and less profitable” (Becker and McCorkel 2011, p. 79). Steffensmeier, Schwartz, and Roche (2013) discovered that women represented only 9 percent of the offenders in 83 corporate fraud cases involving 436 defendants. This research represents the first attempt to explore female participation and gender differences in serious corporate crime (i.e., Ponzi schemes, insider trading fraud, and major accounting schemes). Steffensmeier and colleagues explored the framework of gendered focal concerns and crime opportunities, which predicts less female participation in corporate criminal networks. Focal concerns attributed to women include nurturing social relationships and the “centrality of social relationships” (p. 451). Focal concerns for men are tied, for example, to autonomy, dominance, competitiveness, risk taking, and status. The research revealed that when women engaged in corporate crime, they held minor roles and made less profit. Additionally, the data showed that women were unlikely to be included in conspiracy groups.

Women involved in lower-level white-collar crimes often are co-conspirators with male colleagues, although they participate either on the fringe or act as gatekeepers to gain access to financial assets. Becker and McCorkel (2011) explored the possible narrowing of the gender gap in offending using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data from 2002 to 2008 across all types of offenses. The white-collar crimes included bribery/extortion, counterfeiting/forgery, embezzlement, and fraud. Group offending represented much smaller percentages, and female-only groups were rare across the spectrum of white-collar crime. Across all types of crimes included in the data, individual men represented the largest group of offenders, except for prostitution and embezzlement offenses committed by individual females. The results also showed that women co-offend at a higher rate in mixed-gender groups compared to all-female groups, except in the case of embezzlement. Becker and McCorkel’s findings support past research that found women are more likely to specialize in petty theft, fraud, shoplifting, bad checks, and embezzlement (e.g., Steffensmeier 1993; Chesney-Lind 2004; Belknap 2007).

Accounting for the distribution and involvement of women in white-collar crime is a perplexing task. Several quantitative studies support the idea that women are less frequently involved in white-collar crime compared to men, although case studies suggest an increase in the severity and range of participation (e.g., Dodge 2009; Perri and Brodi 2011). Peter Gottschalk’s (2013) analysis of 255 newspaper articles in Norway discovered only 20 of the crimes involved females who committed fraud, theft, manipulation, and corruption. Similarly, Blickle, Schlegel, Fassbender, and Klein’s (2006) sample of 76 offenders in Germany showed that in those convicted of white-collar crime, there were only six females. As previously noted, though, incremental changes are occurring that narrow the gender gap.

When embezzlement is included as a white-collar crime, there are just as many female as male offenders, if not more. The costs of embezzlement are estimated to amount to billions of dollars annually. Known embezzlement cases show a large percentage of female participation. The 2012 Marquet report on embezzlement found that of the 522 offenders in 528 cases, 303 were female (58 percent). The 2012 global fraud study by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) discovered that almost one third of all fraud cases were committed by women; Canada and the United States had higher proportions of female fraudsters (52 percent and 45 percent, respectively). The FBI data on arrests for embezzlement show a steady upward trend for women beginning in 1964 (Simon and Ahn-Redding 2005; Dodge 2013). Despite similar rates of arrests and offenses, most research finds that the median loss for occupational financial fraud is higher for males than females.

Women represent a small percentage of the known offenders engaging in corporate crime, which may be attributable to opportunity. Women account for approximately 20 percent of the executive positions in Fortune 10 companies (Lennon 2013). Clearly, the limited number of women in high-status corporate positions contributes to the gender ratio gap in offending. Abundant qualitative research, however, demonstrates that women, given the right circumstances, are susceptible to white-collar offending.

The 2001 case involving Martha Stewart, although resulting in only perjury related charges and securities fraud (later dismissed at trial) charges, exemplifies the past, current, and potential future reactions when women enter the masculine world of white-collar crime. Stewart, who denied any wrongdoing, was accused and, perhaps, battered by male prosecutors who believed she had engaged in insider trading. Many critics believed the relentless legal pursuit against Stewart was due to her standing as a successful, arrogant, demanding, high-profile business woman (Oppenheimer, 2003; Slater 2006). Stewart was never charged with insider trading, but her case exemplifies the venomous reactions to women in the business world who play by the same rules as men. More likely, Lea Fastow’s involvement in the implosion of Enron, including charges of wire fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and tax fraud, was far more serious. Similarly, Betty Vinson, the corporate reporting director at WorldCom, pled guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges in an accounting scheme that hid $7 billion in expenses to inflate earnings before the firm suffered one of the largest bankruptcy filings in US history. In the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s, described as one of the worst financial disasters of the 20th century, the involvement of women was largely ignored (Calavita, Tillman, and Pontell 1997; Dodge 2009). At least 27 women, most of whom held positions as vice presidents or managers, reaped benefits ranging from $10,000 to $3.7 million in illegal transactions (Dodge 2009).

Many women in political positions are among the roster of white-collar offenders. State crimes by female Nazi supervisors at the Ravensbrück concentration camp, for example, demonstrate the potential for women to maltreat, torture, and murder other women (Morrison 2000; Brown 2002; Saidel 2006). Dorothea Binz, overseer of the camp, and officer Irma Grese were ultimately sentenced to death by hanging and executed in 1945 for their participation. Conceivably, these women, when faced with the same social context and pressures, acted in a manner that mirrored their male counterparts (Dodge 2009). Although the crimes that occurred during the Nazi regime represent extreme examples, many women have engaged in state and political crimes by abusing their position and power.

Political crime by women appears, at least anecdotally, to be increasing at a rate that will likely be comparable to men in the future as more females obtain governmental positions. Political crimes often involve bribery for personal gain. For instance, Sara Bost entered politics with an extensive background in banking and public service. In 1986 she was elected the first African American mayor of Irvington, New Jersey. Eventually, she was accused of taking bribes from developers and engaging in witness tampering. She received a plea bargain after admitting to one count of witness tampering; the charges of receiving $8,500 in kickbacks, mail fraud, and tax evasion were dropped. Arenda Troutman, a Chicago city council member, was accused of accepting a $5,000 cash bribe, with an additional payment of $10,000 and $5,000 in political contributions, after supporting zoning changes and alley access for a private developer. Colorado state senator Deanna Hanna resigned her position after sending a letter to the Colorado Association of Realtors’ political action committee requesting payment in “reparations” because the group had endorsed her opponent in a 2004 election. The grand jury condemned her behavior as “reprehensible,” although no indictment was issued (Dodge 2009).

Scant evidence exists that women engage in crime in the medical field. Numerous research studies suggest that female physicians are more nurturing, empathetic, and compassionate, introducing a new ethic of care that is invested in helping people rather than promotion and monetary gain (Lim 2002). Women in medicine still face entrenched stereotypes in the masculine hierarchy of the occupation. The culture of machismo and heavy workloads often interfere with childcare responsibilities and limit opportunities for women. Surgeons, for example, tend to display masculine characteristics such as arrogance, ruthlessness, and competitiveness—characteristics not traditionally associated with femininity (Cassell 1991). Fraud among female doctors, on one hand, may be less frequent because of the low numbers of practitioners or the specialty practices they choose. On the other hand, insurance fraud and malpractice often is unreported or goes undetected.

Paul Jesilow, Henry Pontell, and Gilbert Geis (1993) found that the presence of a higher number of women working in the medical field failed to reduce overall fraud and abuse. Interviews of 147 physicians who had been convicted of Medicaid and Medicare fraud included only 14 women; according to the authors this was proportional to the number of women physicians at the time the study was conducted. Lim (2002) examined 425 California doctors who received disciplinary actions over four years from 1990 through 1994. Women represented only 7 percent of the physicians involved in the illegal insurance billing, although women represented 20 percent of the physicians in the state during the timeframe of the study.

Whether women physicians are as likely to commit fraud remains unknown. Jesilow and colleagues (1993) speculated that women physicians were less likely to feel the need to commit insurance fraud because they were more likely to be married to other professionals and felt less pressure to earn additional money. Also, the high rates of alcoholism and suicide among women physicians, according to the researchers, may reflect frustration and anxiety turned inward as a more feminine defense mechanism. Lim (2002) offered several explanations for low criminal participation among female doctors. First, there may be increases in crimes committed by women doctors, but they remain undetected. Second, women are more reluctant to commit medical-related crimes because of their focus on quality of care versus money and professional advancement. Third, Lim speculated that women commit similar violations but are less likely to be caught, disciplined, or prosecuted. The most common offenses for the female physicians were substandard care, incompetence or negligence, and failure to comply with professional rules.

Female participation in white-collar crime remains somewhat of a mystery. Holtfreter’s (2005) analysis of data from an ACFE survey of government, business, and public accounting employees compared individual offender characteristics and organizational victim characteristics for three offenses: fraud asset misappropriation (theft or misuse of organizational assets), corruption, and fraudulent statements. The majority of cases (84 percent) involved asset misappropriation. The average age of the offenders was 41, and 53 percent of the offenses were committed by males. An analysis of gender differences showed females were more likely than males to commit asset misappropriation.

The controversies surrounding the role of women in white-collar crime are numerous and remain contentious. Unfortunately, accurate quantitative and qualitative data are rare. Speculations that women may “do gender” in the workplace as they become more competitive and aggressive are warranted as opportunities increase. The idea that women may create a more caring workplace environment appears to maintain gender-based stereotypes that may inhibit further unbiased exploration. Women in high positions continue to face a double bind, according to Rhode (1989): “Women are criticized for being ‘too feminine’ or ‘not feminine’ enough. Those who conform to accepted stereotypes appear to lack ideas or initiative, while women who take a more assertive stance are judged arrogant, aggressive, or abrasive” (pp. 169–170). While arrogance and aggressiveness are characteristics of male behavior, societal expectations for the behavior of women eschew hubris and competitiveness. Women in upper-echelon positions may feel isolated and more closely supervised, which may limit the number of white-collar crimes they commit.

Victims of white-collar crime seldom receive much attention, although the financial, physical, and mental harms caused by these offenses are widespread (Snider 1996; Croall 2001; Davies 2003b; McGurrin and Friedrichs 2010). Victimization can result from a wide array of activities by corporations and professionals that have a negative impact on the lives of people across the demographic spectrum (e.g., socioeconomic standing, race, ethnicity, age). Corporate crimes, such as price fixing, unsafe products, and poor work environments, result in costs to individuals, taxpayers, consumers, and vulnerable populations. Professional crimes, committed by doctors, lawyers, politicians, or law enforcement officers, undermine public trust and often result in financial or physical injury and sometimes death. Financial frauds (e.g., insider trading, junk bonds, embezzlement, Ponzi schemes) result in an estimated $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion in losses annually (Barak 2010). Victims of financial fraud are diffuse groups that are difficult to identify, and their individual narratives often are lost in large class-action lawsuits. Overall, victimization data on white-collar crimes are nearly impossible to acquire because of the complexity and varied nature of the offenses. Numerous other problems arise in white-collar victimization studies because of victim blaming, unreported incidents, and delayed harm.

In many cases, people may blame the victims of fraud for their own undoing because they acted stupidly or greedily, knowing full well the potential costs. The connection between archaic views that portrayed rape victims as sexually promiscuous or provocative and white-collar crime victims as greedy shows that perceptions of the latter negate “true” victimization (Walsh and Schram 1980). The public and media often perceive a “real” victim as an innocent person harmed by a dangerous unknown offender (Croall 2007; Friedrichs 2010). In contrast, victims of financial fraud are blamed for their willingness to invest in risky investments and get-rich-quick schemes. Unfortunately, victim blaming discourages crime reporting because of embarrassment and shame (Levi 1994; Shichor, Sechrest, and Doocy 2001; Button Tapley, and Lewis 2012). The task of distinguishing gender victimization presents numerous problems in terms of assessing direct physical injury, emotional trauma, and monetary losses.

According to some evidence, women, compared to men, are disproportionately harmed in many corporate schemes and professional wrongdoings, particularly in cases involving unsafe drugs or medical devices (Ganzini, McFarland, and Bloom 1990; Simpson and Elis 1996; Dodge 2009). The legal system and male-dominated public sphere often makes decisions based on patriarchal ideas of what it means to be a “woman” (i.e., feminine, delicate, nurturing, and family focused) and to protect the purity of men’s property. Protective legislation has a long and sordid history in the United States. Although legal jurisprudence in federal and state courts has helped women gain equality, many early court decisions were immersed in logic that protected the perceived fragile nature of women. Past US Supreme Court decisions restricted the number of hours women are able to work (Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 [1908]), limited women’s voting rights and participation on juries, and prohibited certain professional achievements (Bradwell v. Illinois, 130 U.S. 141 [1873]). These decisions often were made not out of fairness but rather to protect women from themselves and maintain their positions as wives and mothers. Similar, access to birth control and reproductive rights often placed women in untenable and dangerous situations. In 1965, the Supreme Court finally overturned the last state law that prohibited married couples from using contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 [1965]). In 1972, the Court ruled that the right to privacy extends to an unmarried person’s right to use contraceptives (Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 [1972]). The right to an abortion continues to be challenged, as many states have enacted laws to limit young girls and women’s access to abortion, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 [1973]). While progress is being made toward fair and ethical treatment of women in the courts, many large corporations and medical researchers undermine the importance of respecting reproductive rights.

In many cases, the courts, companies, and federal and state regulatory agencies ignored unsafe working conditions, which resulted in the deaths of many young, minority women. Indeed, the rights of black females and other minorities were harder to achieve. In 1983, a lawsuit against Hughes Helicopter alleged that the company discriminated against black females in violation of Title VII by overlooking women for supervisory and upper-level positions. A lower court ruled against Moore, who instigated the lawsuit, because she could represent only black females, not all females. The intersection of gender and race continues to work against minority women seeking redress in the courts. The victimization of women at the hands of corporate male executives who exert patriarchal control often is minimalized or ignored (Szockyj and Fox 1996). The 1911 case of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company illustrates the blatant disregard of providing safe working conditions for women. The Triangle Shirtwaist Company employed approximately 100 men and 600 women, who were primarily Italian and Jewish immigrants between the ages of 13 and 23 (Simpson and Elis 1996). On March 25, a fire started on the eighth floor of the building and quickly spread through the clothing factory. A total of 141 deaths were reported, 136 of them girls and women. Many employees were unable to exit the building, and jumped to their deaths from the top floors, because the owners had locked the doors to prevent women from pilfering blouses. Firefighters encountered the charred bodies of women massed together in an attempt to escape the inferno. The incident eventually led to public outrage over corporate greed and unsafe working conditions. In 1991, a similar event occurred at the Imperial Food Products chicken-processing plant in North Carolina. The fire killed 25 workers and injured 56; the exit doors had been locked to prevent the theft of chicken and to discourage unauthorized breaks. The workers were impoverished black females, and the plant violated numerous US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Few efforts were made by the company to adequately compensate the victims or their families.

Gender stands out as an important factor in the victimization of women by corporations that market unsafe drugs and medical devices such as diethylstilbestrol (DES), high-hormone birth control pills, diet drugs, intrauterine contraceptive devices, and tampons (see, e.g., Mintz 1985; Angell 1996; Crisanti 1998; Mundy 2001). The widespread nature of this type of victimization often is estimated based on lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that ignored research results identifying complications from their products. Women, according to Gerber and Weeks (1992), are more susceptible to corporate crime as reproducers.

DES, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1941, was introduced as a miracle drug that would ease menopausal symptoms, reduce morning sickness, treat gonorrhea, prevent premature labor pains, and fatten chickens. Eli Lilly sold approximately 100,000 prescriptions annually for 18 years after 1953. In the United States, 4 million to 10 million women were exposed from 1938 through the early 1970s (Dodge 2009). The majority of patients were middle-class, white, well-educated women. They gave birth to a generation of DES daughters, many of whom experienced reproductive problems and developed a rare form of vaginal cancer.

There have been many frauds by drug corporations and physicians involving products targeting women. Wyeth-Ayerst/Pfizer downplayed the risks of the surgically implanted Norplant contraceptive, used by 1 million women in the United States and more than 4 million worldwide. A slew of lawsuits resulted. In 2011, Pfizer settled a class-action lawsuit representing about 4,000 women at a cost of almost $30 million. Pfizer continues to battle over 6,000 lawsuits that resulted from the side effects of the hormone replacement drug Prempro and, as of 2012, had paid out $896 million in settlements. The list of transgressions by corporations related to birth control and hormone treatment is extensive; some have resulted in serious injury or death for women. No viable birth control pills for men have been developed, although some research is under way. Many scholars have noted that the continued control by men in the field of reproductive medicine results in bias, subjection, and victimization because of sexualized images of the ideal female (Corea 1995).

The victimization of women by pharmaceutical companies and doctors also occurs because of societal standards of beauty. Cosmetic surgery often perpetuates the “cult of femininity” and “culture of beauty,” according to white-collar crime scholar Sally Simpson (personal communication, 2007). As early as 1895, doctors first experimented on enlarging women’s breasts by transferring fat from benign tumors, and, in the 1900s, by injecting paraffin wax, sponges, and mixtures of petroleum jelly and olive oil (Dodge 2009). The use of silicone for breast augmentation began with injections of industrial silicone until Dow Corning introduced an unregulated implant contained in a sealed sac. After passage of the Medical Device Act in 1979, the breast implants were grandfathered in without scrutiny or safety testing. In the early 1980s, the implants were associated with connective tissue disorders and numerous other medical maladies in women. In 1990s, the company faced massive tort litigation, and the Food and Drug Administration finally banned silicone-gel implants in 2006. The use of silicone implants remains controversial.

Plastic surgery in reconstruction is a valuable medical tool, but many elective cosmetic surgery procedures carry inherent risks. In 2012, young women between the ages of 13 and 19 underwent over 236,000 cosmetic procedures, including nose reshaping, breast lifts, liposuction, and tummy tucks (ourbodiesourselves.org). While these procedures may enhance self-esteem, safety studies are scarce. Women now travel to countries around the world on “cosmetic safaris” to have multiple procedures performed at one time—a practice often frowned upon in the United States. South Africa and Thailand are popular destinations, and doctors advertise online and make promises of obtaining the perfect body. The health risks of Botox, liposuction, and “lunchtime facelifts” are undeniable, but because the procedures are elective, victim blaming prevails and mitigates the responsibility of corporations and medical professionals.

Are women engaging in more white-collar crime? The answer is yes and no. As women move into positions of power, they face greater pressure in a male-dominated environment to take risks and possibly engage in illegal or unethical behavior given the opportunity. Crimes of profit, often prompted by greed, are human offenses that transcend the boundaries of gender. The amount of white-collar crime committed by women is difficult to detect because of the secretive nature of the offenses and lack of prosecution, yet it is reasonable to assume that official statistics fail to capture many of these incidents (Croall 2001). Extrapolation from the high number of women involved in embezzlement suggests that given the right circumstances, increases in price fixing, insider trading, Ponzi schemes, and antitrust violations by females will occur.

Some research suggests that women may become involved in white-collar crime for humanitarian reasons (to assist and care for family and friends) or they may act out of greed—similar to the reasons given by male offenders (Goldstraw 2002). Pamela Davies (2003a) challenges us to look more closely at the reasons behind white-collar crime by women and further investigate the possibility that females commit crime as “greedy entrepreneurs” (p. 18). Women and white-collar crime, although discussed for many years, continues to be a fruitful area of exploration. The primary obstacles are obtaining data and moving away from frameworks of male-versus-female stereotypical dichotomies, much like early policing research. A great deal may be accomplished in the future by leaving behind the stereotypes of pink- versus white-collar crime. Explanations of gender gaps are instrumental in understanding criminal behavior, but perhaps future research should consider that crime is neither male nor female, but just human behavior.

While research from the United States, Norway, Germany, and Australia on women as offenders and victims of white-collar crime is growing more plentiful, the plight of women in Third World countries remains a largely unexplored area. Unsafe working conditions, inadequate medical care, and reproductive issues are huge problems for women in many countries. With some frequency, unsafe drugs and baby formula are sent to other countries by US corporations—an unfathomable act. The number of women killed or injured in countries engaged in the active suppression of women’s rights is a topic too extensive to discuss in detail in this essay, but future research and exposure may save millions of lives.