ORGANIZED CRIME

Organised crime or criminal organisations are transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralised enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit. Some criminal organisations, such as terrorist organisations, are politically motivated. Sometimes criminal organisations force people to do business with them, as when a gang extorts money from shopkeepers for so-called "protection". Gangs may become disciplined enough to be considered organised. An organised gang or criminal set can also be referred to as a mob.

In the United States, the Organized Crime Control Act (1970) defines organised crime as "The unlawful activities of [...] a highly organised, disciplined association". Criminal activity as a structured group is referred to as racketeering and such crime is commonly referred to as the work of the Mob. In the UK, police estimate organised crime involves up to 38,000 people operating in 6,000 various groups. In addition, due to the escalating violence of Mexico's drug war, the Mexican drug cartels are considered the "greatest organised crime threat to the United States" according to a report issued by the United States Department of Justice.

The demand for illegal goods and services nurtures the emergence of ever more centralised and powerful criminal syndicates, who may ultimately succeed in undermining public morals, neutralizing law enforcement through corruption and infiltrating the legal economy unless appropriate countermeasures are taken. This theoretical proposition can be depicted in a model comprising four elements: government, society, illegal markets and organised crime. While interrelations are acknowledged in both directions between the model elements, in the last instance the purpose is to explain variations in the power and reach of organised crime in the sense of an ultimately unified organisational entity.

Patron-client networks are defined by the fluid interactions they produce. Organised crime groups operate as smaller units within the overall network, and as such tend towards valuing significant others, familiarity of social and economic environments, or tradition. These networks are usually composed of:

Hierarchies based on 'naturally' forming family, social and cultural traditions;

'Tight-knit' locus of activity/labour;

Fraternal or nepotistic value systems;

Personalised activity; including family rivalries, territorial disputes, recruitment and training of family members, etc.;

Entrenched belief systems, reliance of tradition (including religion, family values, cultural expectations, class politics, gender roles, etc.); and,

Communication and rule enforcement mechanisms dependent on organisational structure, social etiquette, history of criminal involvement, and collective decision-making.

Perhaps the best known patron-client networks are the Sicilian and Italian American Cosa Nostra, most commonly known as the Sicilian Mafia. The Neapolitan Camorra, the Calabrian and Italian Canadian 'Ndrangheta, and the Apulian Sacra Corona Unita are similar Italian organised crime groups. Other organised enterprises include the Russian mafia, Albanian Mafia, Irish mob, Corsican mafia, Chinese Triads, and the Japanese Yakuza.

Bureaucratic/corporate organised crime groups are defined by the general rigidity of their internal structures. Focusing more on how the operations works, succeeds, sustains itself or avoids retribution, they are generally typified by:

A complex authority structure;

An extensive division of labour between classes within the organisation;

Meritocratic (as opposed to cultural or social attributes);

Responsibilities carried out in an impersonal manner;

Extensive written rules/regulations (as opposed to cultural praxis dictating action); and,

'Top-down' communication and rule enforcement mechanisms.

However, this model of operation has some flaws:

The 'top-down' communication strategy is susceptible to interception, more so further down the hierarchy being communicated to;

Maintaining written records jeopardises the security of the organisation and relies on increased security measures;

Infiltration at lower levels in the hierarchy can jeopardise the entire organisation (a 'house of cards' effect); and,

Death, injury, incarceration or internal power struggles dramatically heighten the insecurity of operations.

Whilst bureaucratic operations emphasis business processes and strongly authoritarian hierarchies, these are based on enforcing power relationships rather than an overlying aim of protectionism, sustainability or growth.

A distinctive gang culture underpins many, but not all, organised groups; this may develop through recruiting strategies, social learning processes in the corrective system experienced by youth, family or peer involvement in crime, and the coercive actions of criminal authority figures. The term “street gang” is commonly used interchangeably with “youth gang,” referring to neighborhood or street-based youth groups that meet “gang” criteria. Miller (1992) defines a street gang as “a self-formed association of peers, united by mutual interests, with identifiable leadership and internal organisation, who act collectively or as individuals to achieve specific purposes, including the conduct of illegal activity and control of a particular territory, facility, or enterprise."

"Zones of transition" refer to deteriorating neighbourhoods with shifting populations - conflict between groups, fighting, "turf wars", and theft promotes solidarity and cohesion. Cohen (1955): working class teenagers joined gangs due to frustration of inability to achieve status and goals of the middle class; Cloward and Ohlin (1960): blocked opportunity, but unequal distribution of opportunities lead to creating different types of gangs (that is, some focused on robbery and property theft, some on fighting and conflict and some were retreatists focusing on drug taking); Spergel (1966) was one of the first criminologists to focus on evidence-based practice rather than intuition into gang life and culture. Klein (1971) like Spergel studied the effects on members of social workers’ interventions. More interventions actually lead to greater gang participation and solidarity and bonds between members. Downes and Rock (1988) on Parker’s analysis: strain theory applies, labelling theory (from experience with police and courts), control theory (involvement in trouble from early childhood and the eventual decision that the costs outweigh the benefits) and conflict theories. No ethnic group is more disposed to gang involvement than another, rather it is the status of being marginalised, alienated or rejected that makes some groups more vulnerable to gang formation, and this would also be accounted for in the effect of social exclusion, especially in terms of recruitment and retention. These may also be defined by age (typically youth) or peer group influences, and the permanence or consistency of their criminal activity. These groups also form their own symbolic identity or public representation which are recognisable by the community at large (include colours, symbols, patches, flags and tattoos).

Research has focused on whether the gangs have formal structures, clear hierarchies and leadership in comparison with adult groups, and whether they are rational in pursuit of their goals, though positions on structures, hierarchies and defined roles are conflicting. Some studied street gangs involved in drug dealing - finding that their structure and behaviour had a degree oforganisational rationality. Members saw themselves as organised criminals; gangs were formal-rational organisations, Strong organisational structures, well defined roles and rules that guided members’ behaviour. Also a specified and regular means of income (i.e. drugs). Padilla (1992) agreed with the two above. However some have found these to be loose rather than well-defined and lacking persistent focus, there was relatively low cohesion, few shared goals and little organisational structure. Shared norms, value and loyalties were low, structures "chaotic", little role differentiation or clear distribution of labour. Similarly, the use of violence does not conform to the principles behind protection rackets, political intimidation and drug trafficking activities employed by those adult groups. In many cases gang members graduate from youth gangs to highly developed OC groups, with some already in contact with such syndicates and through this we see a greater propensity for imitation. Gangs and traditional criminal organisations cannot be universally linked (Decker, 1998), however there are clear benefits to both the adult and youth organisation through their association. In terms of structure, no single crime group is archetypal, though in most cases there are well-defined patterns of vertical integration (where criminal groups attempt to control the supply and demand), as is the case in arms, sex and drug trafficking.

The entrepreneurial model looks at either the individual criminal, or a smaller group of organised criminals, that capitalise off the more fluid 'group-association' of contemporary organised crime. This model conforms to social learning theory or differential association in that there are clear associations and interaction between criminals where knowledge may be shared, or values enforced, however it is argued that rational choice is not represented in this. The choice to commit a certain act, or associate with other organised crime groups, may be seen as much more of an entrepreneurial decision - contributing to the continuation of a criminal enterprise, by maximising those aspects that protect or support their own individual gain. In this context, the role of risk is also easily understandable, however it is debatable whether the underlying motivation should be seen as true entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship as a product of some social disadvantage.

The criminal organisation, much in the same way as one would assess pleasure and pain, weighs such factors as legal, social and economic risk to determine potential profit and loss from certain criminal activities. This decision-making process rises from the entrepreneurial efforts of the group's members, their motivations and the environments in which they work. Opportunism is also a key factor – the organised criminal or criminal group is likely to frequently reorder the criminal associations they maintain, the types of crimes they perpetrate, and how they function in the public arena (recruitment, reputation, etc.) in order to ensure efficiency, capitalisation and protection of their interests.

Organised crime often victimize businesses through the use of extortion or theft and fraud activities like hijacking cargo trucks, robbing goods, committing bankruptcy fraud (also known as "bust-out"), insurance fraud or stock fraud (inside trading). Organised crime groups also victimize individuals by car theft (either for dismantling at "chop shops" or for export), art theft, bank robbery, burglary, jewelery theft, computer hacking, credit card fraud, economic espionage, embezzlement, identity theft, and securities fraud ("pump and dump" scam). Some organised crime groups defraud national, state, or local governments by bid rigging public projects, counterfeiting money, smuggling or manufacturing untaxed alcohol (bootlegging) or cigarettes (buttlegging), and providing immigrant workers to avoid taxes.

Organised crime groups seek out corrupt public officials in executive, law enforcement, and judicial roles so that their activities can avoid, or at least receive early warnings about, investigation and prosecution.

Organised crime groups also provide a range of illegal services and goods, such as loansharking of money at very high interest rates, assassination, blackmailing, bombings, bookmaking and illegal gambling, confidence tricks, copyright infringement, counterfeiting of intellectual property, kidnapping, prostitution, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, oil smuggling, organ trafficking, contract killing, identity document forgery, money laundering, point shaving, price fixing. illegal dumping of toxic waste, illegal trading of nuclear materials, military equipment smuggling, nuclear weapons smuggling, passport fraud, providing illegal immigration and cheap labor, people smuggling, trading in endangered species, and trafficking in human beings. Organised crime groups also do a range of business and labour racketeering activities, such as skimming casinos, insider trading, setting up monopolies in industries such as garbage collecting, construction and cement pouring, bid rigging, getting "no-show" and "no-work" jobs, political corruption and bullying.

Art theft is usually for the purpose of resale or for ransom (sometimes called artnapping). Stolen art is sometimes used by criminals as collateral to secure loans. Only a small percentage of stolen art is recovered—estimates range from 5 to 10%. This means that little is known about the scope and characteristics of art theft.

RANSOM

Ransom is the practice of holding a prisoner or item to extort money or property to secure their release, or it can refer to the sum of money involved.

In an early German law, a similar concept was called bad influence.

Julius Caesar was captured by pirates near the island of Pharmacusa, and held until someone paid 50 talents to free him.

In Europe during the Middle Ages, ransom became an important custom of chivalric warfare. An important knight, especially nobility or royalty, was worth a significant sum of money if captured, but nothing if he was killed. For this reason, the practice of ransom contributed to the development of heraldry, which allowed knights to advertise their identities, and by implication their ransom value, and made them less likely to be killed out of hand. Examples include Richard the Lion Heart and Bertrand du Guesclin.

When ransom means "payment", the word comes via Old French rançon from Latin redemptio = "buying back":compare "redemption".

In Judaism ransom is called kofer-nefesh (Hebrew: כפרנפש‎). Among other uses, the word was applied to the poll tax of a half shekel to be paid by every male above twenty years at the census.

East Germany, which built the Inner German border to stop emigration, practiced ransom with people. East German citizens could emigrate through the semi-secret route of being ransomed by the West German government in a process termed Freikauf (literally the buying of freedom). Between 1964 and 1989, 33,755 political prisoners were ransomed. West Germany paid over 3.4 billion DM – nearly $2.3 billion at 1990 prices – in goods and hard currency. Those ransomed were valued on a sliding scale, ranging from around 1,875 DM for a worker to around 11,250 DM for a doctor. For a while, payments were made in kind using goods that were in short supply in East Germany, such as oranges, bananas, coffee and medical drugs. The average prisoner was worth around 4,000 DM worth of goods.

Although ransom is usually demanded only after the kidnapping of a person, it is not unheard of for thieves to demand ransom for the return of an inanimate object or body part. In 1987, thieves broke into the tomb of Argentinian president Juan Perón and stole his hands; they later demanded $8 million US for their return. The ransom was not paid.

The practice of towing vehicles and charging towing fees for the vehicle's release, is often euphemized or referred to as ransoming, especially by opponents of towing. (In Scotland, booting vehicles on private property is outlawed as extortion.)

Date: 2015-01-29; view: 992