ThE LEIPzIGER PRoGRESSIoN MoDEL oF WhITE-CoLLAR CRIME

position to disguise their fraud over a long period through the chosen approach.

They show themselves resistant to the stress factor created by the house of lies that is created through their fraudulent behavior (cf. hofmann, 2008, p. 213; Rienecker, 2009, p. 21 f).

social inconspicuousness of the white-collar criminal into account. The objective of his study is to re-adjust this integrative approach and to specify it according to the given set of problems. The presumption is that personal factors that are crucial for the emergence of a white-collar crime are more subtle and less obvious than with other forms of crime. As such the Leipziger Progression Model analyses the processual character of the act of white-collar crime and the driving factors that occur throughout the process (cf. Schneider, 2007, p. 558).

During everyday work there will often be situations which offer the oppor- tunity to commit a white-collar crime. Even with routine activities, in which safety relevant operations are undertaken by the same employee, without control by a third party, criminal situations can arise. These are situations that can principally be used to take criminal action. In such cases, a prudent employee will at best be able to acknowledge the possibility of a crime occurring, inform accordingly and make proposals for improving the situation. Whether this occurs depends on how the individual employee rates the situation. The rating of the situation on the other hand depends on the varying personal risk constellation. The personal risk constellation is divided into pre-conditions where you are either pre-disposed to crime or resistant to crime. A person who is pre-disposed to crime will likely com- mit a criminal offence despite otherwise social unobtrusiveness.

Schneider differentiates between five groups of personal risk factors which can be split into crime pre-disposed and crime resistant categories (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 139 ff).

Based on Agnew “Foundation for a General Theory of Crime” (1992) work he places certain emotions (negative emotions) in the first category. These are emo- tions stemming from negatively-perceived relationships to other people such as colleagues or superiors. Frustration based on not receiving a, in the persons view, deserved recognition or not receiving an expected promotion increases the risk of committing a white-collar crime. In such cases, the incentive is there to compen- sate the negative emotions by carrying out a punishable act (cf. Schneider, 2008, p.

139).

on the other hand, you have the crime resistant factors which Schneider relates to satisfaction and an inner balance which is based on a healthy self-assess- ment, being appropriately remunerated by your employer and being appreciated by colleagues and superiors (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 140).

The second category relates to life style. Schneider denotes a lack of aspira- tion and an unrealistic relationship to money as the life style related predilection towards crime. Despite the possibility to fulfill material wishes, these factors lead to delinquency as they create a plausible reason for acting whereas the existence of neutralization strategies help the doer to maintain his self image of non delin- quency (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 140).

In contrast a normal aspiration level and a realistic relationship to money and property are recognized as crime resistant factors. When these personality traits exist, the individual is not expected to commit a crime (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 141).

Thirdly a personal crisis can be the determining factor leading to an act of white-collar crime. The trigger can be, for example, the need to repay high tax debts or failed investments. Retaining ones aspiration levels can then, in such cases, lead to a pre-condition of being pre-disposed to crime (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 141).

A crime resistant pre-condition would be to lower ones aspiration levels to adapt to the situation at hand (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 141).

The next two categories relate to the levels of inner and outer stability (social bonds). Also here Schneider differentiates between crime pre-disposed and crime resistant pre-conditions.

The fourth category refers to job-related sub-cultures within ones working life (work-related subcultures)⁸ which are important in determining a pre-condi- tion of being pre-disposed to crime. Such sub-cultures are created, for example, by the extension of a person’s working life in to their recreational time, the merging of work and after work time and through the selection and limitation of the contacts selected. values and certain ways of behavior are thus established whose deviating character even the individual involved can hardly apprehend. Schneider points out that when looking at this newly developed behaviour from a purely formal point of view one would view it as socially nondescript as the sub-cultural orien- tation is integrated in the person’s working life and as such even family members 8 The term sub culture refers to a within itself closed social sub culture formed by a group of people which differ from the socially dominant culture in their val- ues, norms, needs, behavior and symbols. In sociology the concept of a sub culture describes and explains contemporary value orientation and life-styles as well as describing and explaining deviating or delinquent behaviour.

would interpret it as being integrated at work. Should the person involved have close ties to job related sub-cultures and no opposing relationships exist, then this can support the decision to commit a criminal act not least of all because the per- petrator, should he be discovered, will not expect condemnation from within the sub-culture (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 142).

The crime resistant counterpart would be to have strong relationships, for example with ones family of origin, with ones procreation family (meaning the family created through marriage) and not to delinquent friends within and outside of ones ’ working life (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 142).

The last of the five categories within the model relates to the person’s value orientation. Based on empirical studies, Schneider sees the following factors as pre-conditions to being pre-disposed to crime: economic success, a high living standard, hedonism, power and influence being important to the person, whereas traditional values such as conventional work ethics or law abidance and integrity are not guiding factors for a crime pre-disposed situation. Although, the potential white-collar criminal may proclaim to such values in a situation not pre-disposed to crime. A one-sided orientation towards materialistic values can be categorized as a personal risk factor towards having a pre-disposition to crime (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 143).

Schneider names the orientation towards traditional and modern idealistic values as the crime resistant counterpart. Referring to hermann (2003, p. 345 ff) he refers to values such as friendship, an outgoing personality, being in a steady relationship, political engagement, tolerance, self-responsibility, having an inner calm, environmental responsibility, healthiness, emotionality, creativity and social responsibility (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 143).

Should a “doer” find himself in a situation which offers a pre-disposition to crime, then it is of importance whether personal risk factors exist or not. Schneider’s described risk factors influence the individual person’s decision whether or not to commit a crime. Every single risk factor increases the overall risk that situations are viewed as good opportunities by a person with a crime pre-disposition and eventually lead to a criminal act taking place. Should a person’s personal risk fac- tors accumulate, then this can lead to a syndrome of criminal endangerment which Schneider reflecting the work of Bock “kriminologie” (2000) refers to as “relevance of connections”. Relevance of connections are basic intentions and especially strong

interests that in summary denote a personality. The importance is not the number but the intensity of the personal risk factors. Should the intensity of the risk fac- tors reach a critical mass, then it will result in a criminal offence taking place (cf.

Schneider, 2008, 147).

The starting point of the model sees a person in a situation pre-disposed to crime. In order to be able to make use of the situation as a good opportunity for committing a crime, he must not let it pass (first phase of the progression model).

To be able to recognize a situation as a good opportunity for committing a crime, the person must have detailed knowledge of the respective processes and work routines which the potential delinquent can then misuse for his own needs. This is the reason why white-collar crime is generally not committed by people until they have been in the company for around about two years. Should a person not have these insights, then he will not be able to recognize a good opportunity. Another reason for not recognizing the opportunity is a pronounced orientation towards values of conformity. In such cases purist values such as irreproachability, correct- ness and righteousness act as perception filters.

Should the view of the potential criminal not be obscured by purist values or the lack of procedural knowledge, then the person moves towards the stage of assessing the situation within the progression model (second phase of the progres- sion model). Whether an individual then exploits a situation pre-disposed to crime to undergo a criminal act or not depends on his individual risk constellation. If this includes mostly crime pre-disposed factors, then the situation will be viewed as a good opportunity for committing a crime. In this phase, a person’s value ori- entation also acts as a filter. Crime resistant values can still stop a person from committing a crime in this phase of the progression model. Should however crime pre-disposed values prevail, then the person will commit a crime.

At the time of criminal action the third phase of the progression model is reached. At this stage no new or fundamentally different aspects will intervene.

Schneider views that for the act of the crime the increase in mass and intensity of personal risk factors is the decisive factor (cf. Schneider, 2008, p. 144-147)

Illustration 5: Leipziger Progression Model

The fact that there may be cases where a crime can be explained simply through being provided with a good opportunity and not by a person’s risk con- stellation, delineates, according to Schneider, the boundaries of the Leipziger Progression Model. According to him, though, the majority of cases of white-collar crime are based, according to current scientific research, on situational and per- sonal conditions being the trigger for committing a crime (cf. Schneider, 2008, p.

147)