Entrepreneurial crime as a form of white collar crime.

Describing entrepreneurial/white-collar wrongdoing as ethical or moral violations trails ideals characteristic within values of what is recognized as natural law. Natural law emphases on activities or behaviors that are well-defined as wrong since they disrupt the ethical values of a specific subculture or collection. Some prefer to describe white-collar crime as defilement of criminal law. From this outline, white-collar corruptions are criminally unlawful behaviors dedicated by higher class persons during their occupation. From a schemes perspective, those working in the criminal justice scheme would likely describe the white-collar crime as criminally unlawful actions. Crime, in this setting, is defined as “a deliberate act or omission dedicated in violation of the criminal rule without justification or defense and authorized by the state as a misdemeanor or felony”. Using a criminal law description to white-collar crime, white-collar crimes are those unlawfully illegal acts dedicated throughout the course of one’s occupation, like an accountant misusing funds from his boss (Gottschalk, 2009). In 2015-2016, the number of business crimes hasn’t been highly predictable as that of other years such as 2014. One instance of a 2015 entrepreneurial wrongdoing is the case of the former CEO of KidoZen.

Jesus M. Rodriguez is the initiator and former CEO of the corporation Kidozen which is founded in Miami. Rendering to an accusation from September 2015, Mr. Rodriguez managed a bank account at the Bank of America for the Corporation as its CEO. It was exposed that from August 2013 to the time he was accused, Jesus defrauds and got assets through fraudulent charades and false factual pretences, also representations and promises in the knowledge that he made false charades. He lied to stockholders that they charities would be used commercial use for the development of the company. He even lied that his corporation had more than 58 clienteles who were paying and that they (the corporation) were making incomes. He also requested that the business had around $1.1 million in reserve, and there was a tech company that planned to buy KidoZen for around $55 million. In 2015, the corporation hit a sticky patch, and Jesus left as Ceo and the business was later sold for only $140,00.

Why do bright, highly educated, talented, successful individuals, who have "made it," risk it all by stealing, lying, and cheating, particularly when what they're thieving is not much likened to what they have? The modest answer is, "since they can." Accounting omission chances usually present themselves to these persons, and they usually end up obligating these crimes. Many individuals tend to think that entrepreneurial offenders are no dissimilar from regular street offenders, but in the real sense the mental characteristics of entrepreneurial criminals are dissimilar. Empirical inquiries have shown that the incidence of white-collar criminals with disruptive conduct difficulties is rather small (no more than 15%) likened to street criminals where almost half have such conduct difficulties. In its place, white-collar criminals tend to conduct themselves in a manner as non-offenders indicating substantial self-control, not less. Greed is a normally planned factor behind white collar crime, but this is also a frequently disputed factor since the majority of white collar offenders are motivated to improve the profits of their companies and not to primarily advantage themselves (Gottschalk, 2009). If there is a personal aim to obligate the crime the offender is typically more motivated to avoid trailing than to gain for their own sake.

White collar perpetrators like other criminal members, "pursue anticipated goals, weigh likely penalties, and select among choices. When criminal chance such as the omission of accounts is good-looking as a means of responding to wish to assist family disasters or forestalling a fall, rational players will choose it. The need-to-control is distinctive among white collar criminals. Individuals with a high desire-for-control are " decisive, assertive, and active." They typically seek leadership characters in group circumstances, achieve more in the face of hardship, put forth more energy, and are talented to envisage the end-goal They tend to not take personal accountability for failure and blame disappointment on uncontrollable exterior factors. They also tend to have an insight of control when in fact they do not, and they tend to trust that objectives can be achieved that are impossible or unusually problematic. A natural significance of this opinion is taking higher dangers than otherwise essential. Other investigators contend that personal gain inspires only a small majority of managers to commit white collar crimes. In its place, these investigators suggest that charisma determines an individual's propensity to involve in white collar crime. Charismatic leaders inspire others to implement their dream, are extremely self-assured, have strong beliefs, and are passionate. Some white-collar perpetrators commit crimes since "they are fearful of loss of financial or professional status" and are interested to make unethical choices to reserve their professional reputation, material wealth, and institutional power. Such individuals "would be sensibly happy with the place they have attained through straight means if only they could keep that place.

Some white collar defendants are tremendously ambitious and gripped with enhancing control and power, and having a sense of dominance bordering on vanity which is fed by " attention and admiration" and which inspires a "sense of right" to "special privileges and extra capitals.

The price of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act is a significant aspect of modifiable white-collar crimes. There are frequent academic opinions and researches that try to regulate the costs and welfares of SOX act. All these investigates have deductions that differ suggestively thus making it problematic to reach to a normal deduction. This alteration in opinions and conclusions is mainly due to the trouble that exists in separating the effect of SOX act from other variables that touch the stock market values. Though, the net private is signified by an econometric approximation of the loss in total market value around the important legislative events. Exactly, it is calculated by subtracting the seeming benefits from the total cost experienced. Ivy Xiying Zhang projected that the net private costs would sum to 1.3 trillion. This is mainly since even though the act is working towards the accomplishment of its main objective, limitation fraud, there still exists major shortcomings that make it likely for offenders such as Jesse M Rodriguez to continue deceiving the public. Most persons argue that the act is too exclusive and adds the unwarranted problem to businesses while others trust that the act is not stringent enough.

If Jesus M Rodriguez had been condemned in a criminal achievement it would be sentenced up to 20 years in custody. However, when the case was established civilly, Jesus M Rodriguez was condemned to 2 years’ imprisonment.

In adversarial schemes, civil and criminal alike, an adjudicator (a jury or judge) considers the influences from both sides, following inspection and cross-examination and re-examination (and legal quarrel on the acceptability of evidence) and levies a judgment. The quarrel is thereby declared ‘resolved.’ This determination, however, comes at an excessive cost, not only regarding the legal expenditures imposed upon the plaintiffs (and the community, too, as leisurely in court spell, judicial costs,) but in the harm done to the fighters as well, psychologically and financially. The conflict never actually goes away. In many methods, commentators allege, it is merely worsened (Galeotti, 2014). In contrast, non-adversarial processes and informal performs are said to be more easily available and less daunting to those who wish to contribute in the legal procedure, but whose skills, resources or confidence are lacking. In credit of positive changes towards non-adversarial approaches of conflict determination overseas, we need to think smart when it comes to trying to solve arguments, and the magistrates should be a place of last option. Preference for cooperation over litigation should be founded not only on the optimistic results attained for dispute community and the stakeholders but also on alterations to lawyers’ well-being resulting from job gratification derived from non-adversarial repetition, which may have positive outcomes for the management of justice. Non-adversarial justice has compensations such as cost and time savings and reduced court backlogs. For this crime that Jesus Rodriguez dedicated, it would be better if the activities which are vested with the powers of examination and imposing consequences to using non-adversarial method since aside from the benefits of using this tactic outlined above, it would have proven exclusively effective. The use of non-adversarial would have occasioned in lower costs and time needed to convict the defendant particularly because he was ready to confess and comply.