White-collar crime as new normal in Pakistan

The pervasive nature of corruption in Pakistan (ranking at 133 out of 180 countries corruption perception index and rule of law score at 0.38 significantly) undermines economic development, public confidence in institutions, and the overall governance landscape.

Sociologist Edwin Sutherland first introduced the term “white-collar crimes” in 1939 to describe non-violent, financially motivated offences perpetrated by individuals who occupy positions of authority, trust, or power.

White-collar crimes often involve complex acts of manipulation, fraud, and exploitation within the financial, corporate, or legal sectors. This contrasts sharply with traditional offences like theft or violent crimes.

Sutherland’s pioneering research challenged the widely held belief that crime is predominantly an issue associated with lower socioeconomic groups. He argued convincingly that criminal behaviour is also prevalent among individuals in the upper classes, who frequently exploit structural weaknesses within the system for their financial gain.

Following Sutherland, scholars such as Cressey extended the discourse surrounding white-collar crime further by noting that many offenders often rationalize their behaviour. They believe that their actions are justifiable, or that they are unlikely to be caught, illustrating a psychological layer to these offences that complicates prevention and prosecution. This rationalisation theory has become instrumental in understanding the mindset of white-collar offenders and the societal conditions that enable their actions.

Despite being non-violent, these offences often yield significant financial and social repercussions, adversely affecting numerous citizens and tarnishing the reputations of vital institutions. The accountability mechanisms in place to combat these crimes, namely the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), and the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) in provinces, face a myriad of challenges.

A disturbing trend has emerged in the performance metrics of accountability agencies such as NAB. For example, the Bureau’s conviction ratio exhibited a significant decline over recent years—dropping from 58.2% in 2018 to a stark low of 32.1% in 2022. This sharp decrease raises pressing questions about NAB’s effectiveness in securing convictions against those accused of corruption.

Additionally, the number of references filed by NAB, which serve as the basis for pursuing prosecutions, has dwindled considerably; cases referred fell from 198 in 2018 to only 30 in 2022.

Additionally, recoveries of more than Rs 4 trillion in just six months in last year were claimed by NAB. An analysis of the nature of these convictions and recoveries reveals that the bulk of successful prosecutions were related to low profile misuse of authority, revealing a focus on cases involving power dynamics in governance.

Similarly, the FIA has reported irregularities and fluctuations in its conviction ratios over the past several years, averaging around 40%. In 2020, the agency achieved its highest conviction ratio, reaching 64.8%, only to see that figure plummet to a disappointing 25.3% the following year.

Moreover, the number of challans filed—the official documents prepared for prosecution—has varied considerably, peaking at 772 in 2021 while falling dramatically to just 281 in 2018. The contentious record of convictions showcases the variability in FIA’s ability to maintain consistency in its prosecutorial efforts against corruption.

These statistics illustrate a pressing need for systemic reforms to enhance the operational capacity of institutions dedicated to fighting corruption.

The observed decline in conviction rates and the noticeable decrease in the number of cases being prosecuted reveal a critical gap in accountability mechanisms in Pakistan.

To restore public faith in the justice system and improve governance, comprehensive measures must be adopted to address these challenges.

The socio-economic ramifications of white-collar crime extend beyond individual cases, as these offences can stunt growth, decrease investor confidence, and erode the rule of law.

Notably, the legal framework addressing white-collar crime in Pakistan has undergone various iterations, starting from the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 and culminating in newer frameworks like the NAB, established in 1999 under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO).

Yet, despite these developments, enforcement agencies experience immense political pressure, soft militarisation, resource constraints, and procedural delays, which collectively frustrate genuine anti-corruption efforts. Public apathy towards corruption further complicates the situation, making community engagement essential for fostering accountability.

The amendments in legislation, including the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2010, illustrate attempts to construct a more robust legal structure against white-collar crimes. However, the effectiveness of these reforms hinges on the independence and operational capacity of enforcement institutions.

The judiciary plays a role in enforcing anti-corruption laws in Pakistan, issuing significant court rulings that lead to the disqualification and conviction of influential politicians. Yet the selective enforcement of these laws raises challenges concerning fairness and broader accountability.

Military and judiciary elites often evade scrutiny, contributing to a perception of inequity within the judicial process, wherein the powerful are seemingly shielded from consequences while ordinary citizens face legal repercussions for less severe offenses.

Moreover, corruption has frequently been weaponized for political leverage within the country. Institutions like NAB have often been directed to target political opponents while selectively protecting allies in power. This politicisation of anti-corruption efforts undermines the credibility of these institutions and often stalls meaningful reform.

This discourse recommends a multifaceted approach to the complex issue of corruption in Pakistan. It underscores the urgent need for comprehensive accountability mechanisms that delineate between bona fide and mala fide actions or omissions. Furthermore, an explicit elucidation of the term “corruption” is essential, alongside addressing conflicts of interest. It is crucial to ensure that accountability measures do not impede economic development.

The role of international agencies is paramount in this context. The selection of leaders for anti-corruption bodies should be executed by autonomous entities, accompanied by well-defined procedures governing their removal. Additionally, fostering international cooperation through the signing of bilateral and multilateral anti-corruption agreements will strengthen efforts in this domain.

To conclude, a robust jurisprudence addressing white-collar crime is vital for the effective combat of corruption in Pakistan. This requires legal innovation, more effective enforcement strategies on all sides of social contract and active public trust-worthy engagement in the accountability process to dispel the really perceived precept of corruption as new normal in the culture of deviance.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025