Canadian Corporate Financial Crime: A Critical Analysis

Abstract

“Corporations, by their very nature …will engage in criminal behaviour” (Glasbeek, 2003, p. 130). This research considers one form of corporate financial crime: violations of provincial securities legislation in Canada. The opportunities for corporate financial crime were considered using a critical discourse analysis of the decisions, extending orders, orders, settlement agreements, and official news releases from the provincial securities regulators between the years 1986 and 2012. Seven sites of opportunity were considered: corporations, corporate officers, industry, nation-state, regulators, technology, and investors.

Each site contributed to the creation of a criminogenic environment. The findings, based on the analyses of 76 corporate financial crime cases, suggest that the ability to create multiple corporate entities and connect them across multiple jurisdictions contributes to this environment. Additionally, corporate officers take advantage of personal relationships to sell securities. Recidivism was not uncommon among the officers. The majority of corporations involved in financial crime came from three industries: finance, real estate, and mining, oil and gas. Neoliberalism as a guiding ideology of economic policy limited the regulatory intervention. Technology was most often an accessory to crime; individual investors were the victims of the crimes.

The opportunities for crime were considered from a critical theoretical perspective, informed by the work of Marx, Foucault, and Castells. Findings indicate that although securities regulations are neither coercive nor facilitative, regulations serve an ideological function by maintaining the impression that corporations are not above the law. Corporations as political actors influence government perspectives on regulations, thereby influencing the laws that are created.

This research provides (a) a sociological perspective of the Canadian features of corporate financial crime, (b) a seven factor explanatory model of the enabling environment, (c) a categorization of corporate crime – opportunities and concealments, and (d) four approaches for mitigating harm to investors.