WHITE-COLLAR CRIME AND SENTENCING DISPARITIES: A LEGAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS

This research paper aims to critically analyse the disparity in legal outcomes and public perception between white-collar crimes and street crimes, with a specific focus on the implications of socioeconomic factors, access to legal resources, and judicial discretion in the enforcement of justice. In order to investigate the systemic leniency extended towards white-collar criminals in contrast to the harsher penalties imposed on street-level offenders, a doctrinal approach has been adopted, relying extensively on secondary sources such as court judgments, sentencing reports, and scholarly commentary. Through this method, the author examines how the perception of white-collar crime as non-violent, coupled with the offenders’ social status and access to high-quality legal counsel, results in more favourable sentencing outcomes within the criminal justice system. The research further explores how mechanisms such as plea bargaining and judicial discretion often deepen sentencing disparities, reinforcing existing socioeconomic bias and institutional inequality. Relying on comparative case analysis including the Satyam scandal, the Enron collapse, and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme—the paper underscores how corporate crime often escapes proportionate legal consequences despite the immense societal harm it causes. The author argues that the existing legal framework not only erodes public trust in justice but also fails to uphold the principle of equal accountability. Consequently, this paper advocates for stricter sentencing guidelines, a reevaluation of prosecutorial discretion, and increased public awareness to ensure equitable enforcement of law across all socioeconomic strata.