Preventing and Controlling Corporate Crime: The Dual Role of Corporate Boards and Legal Sanctions, United States, 1996-2013 (ICPSR 37463)
This project consists of secondary analysis material (syntax only, no data). The original study that the material pertains to examines two distinct but related types of corporate crime prevention and control mechanisms--one that rests on firm governance (specifically, the Board of Directors) and the other on formal legal interventions. Specifically, the study examines whether (ceteris paribus) firms with more gender diversity on their boards are less involved in offending than firms whose boards are less diverse and whether changes in board diversity over time affect firm offending patterns. Of additional interest is how firms respond to legal discovery and punishment.
Do they change their governance structures (i.e., become more diverse) due to formal legal discovery?
Are firms generally deterred from reoffending (recidivism) when discovered or does deterrence depend on the government's response to offenders?
In particular, are certain regimes (criminal, civil, or regulatory) more successful at crime control than others?
Relevant data are collected from a variety of secondary sources, including corporate financial, statistical, and governance information. These data are then linked to cases of corporate offending (accounting fraud, bribery, environmental and anti-competitive) for 3,327 US based companies between 1996 and 2013.
Analyses-NIJ-5.21.2019--2-.do: Syntax (Stata) used to create type of offense count; domain of processing (civil, criminal, regulatory); offense distribution (by corporate year), female board membership (count and percent); Reoffending (by enforcement type and governance characteristics).
Survey of State Attorneys General, United States, 2014 (ICPSR 37949)
The 2014 Survey of State Attorneys General (SAG) collected information on jurisdiction, sources and circumstances of case referrals, and the participation of attorneys general offices in federal or state white-collar crime task forces in 2014. White-collar crime was defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) as: "any violation of law committed through non-violent means, involving lies, omissions, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of a position of trust, by an individual or organization for personal or organizational benefit." SAG sought to analyze how attorneys general offices as an organization in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories respond to white-collar offenses in their jurisdiction.
BJS asked respondents to focus on the following criminal and civil offenses: bank fraud, consumer fraud, insurance fraud, medical fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, environmental offenses, false claims and statements, illegal payments to governmental officials (giving or receiving), unfair trade practices, and workplace-related offenses (e.g., unsafe working conditions). Variables included whether or not offices handled criminal or civil cases in the above categories, estimated number of cases in each category, and what types of criminal or civil sanctions were imposed on white-collar offenders. Researchers also assessed collaboration with partners outside of state attorneys offices, whether cases were referred for federal or local prosecution, and what circumstances lead to referring cases to state regulatory agencies. The extent to which state attorneys offices maintain white-collar crime data was also recorded.