white-collar crime cases often consume time and resources because of their complexity; hence, in offices where the AUSAs carry heavy caseloads, it is difficult to devote the resources necessary to prosecute many of these cases. Furthermore, where the prevailing view is to measure success by the quantity of cases prosecuted, rather than by the quality of those cases, then the pursuit of the complex or sophisticated case becomes less likely. This situation is reinforced by the fact that the investigators have historically taken a reactive approach to white-collar crime, interacting with prosecutors only upon completion of the investigation.

Although experience has shown that the relationship between the prosecutors and investigators is an important one, this relationship is often not fully developed. Successful investigations and subsequent prosecutions are enhanced when investigators work with prosecutors early in the investigative stages of a case because it coordinates their two viewpoints. For example, as agents work with prosecutors more closely, their awareness of OUSA prosecutive priorities increase, so that their cases are selected more in line with those priorities. Additionally, many white-collar investigations rely on the investigative grand jury for obtaining information, necessitating early interaction between investigators and prosecutors.

The heavy caseloads experienced by many AUSAS, however, do not always make it possible for prosecutors to interact closely with investigators through a long or complex case; where this is true, the prosecutorial approach to white-collar crime is also reactive.

State and Local Investigative and Prosecutive Agencies. At the State and local levels there are thousands of investigators and prosecutors who have jurisdiction over many offenses that can also be prosecuted as Federal crimes. Problems at these levels are similar to those associated with the multiplicity of Federal agencies, namely, duplication of effort, work performed at crosspurposes, or a lack of coordination on cases. Concurrent jurisdiction, however, adds another dimension to the difficulty of solidifying efforts, since each level of government brings special capabilities to the investigation and prosecution of white-collar crime cases. One level of government can be more effective than another depending upon the strength of the jurisdiction's interest, its ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence upon conviction. Sometimes the available sanctions for an offense and the expected sentence upon successful prosecution are different. For example, where a State statute carries a stiffer penalty than the parallel Federal law and it can be reasonably expected that such penalty will be imposed it may be more effective to prosecute at the State level. However, there are no general rules delineating which level of government investigates or prosecutes a particular type of offense.

-

Sanctions Available or Imposed. A final aspect to a comprehensive program to effectively address white-collar crime is to ensure the effective sentencing of the white-collar criminal.

Traditional notions of the objectives of sentencing the criminal offender have included: recompensing society for the wrong committed, rehabilitating the offender, and deterring other possible offenders. If sanctions are

appropriate for the offense committed, it is expected that crime should be reduced. Currently, however, sanctions imposed do not always achieve these objectives. The criminal takes minimal risks for the benefit he derives from his crime; thus, there is little compensation, rehabilitation or deterrence, and enforcement personnel become increasingly overburdened with the volume of white-collar criminal activities.

THE NEED FOR COORDINATION AND A FORMALIZED STRUCTURE TO ADDRESS EFFECTIVELY THE ECONOMIC CRIME PROBLEM

The preceding discussion depicts a large, complex system of numerous, decentralized and reactive investigative and prosecutive agencies, loosely linked together. These agencies respond to numerous and diverse schemes that are difficult and time-consuming to detect, investigate, and prosecute. Finally, even where the efforts are successful, there is no assurance that there will be an appropriate sanction. From analysis of this situation, several needs emerged in formulating a national strategy to respond effectively to the problem of white-collar crime:

O Need to educate the general public, business communities and governmental agencies as to the nature, scope and impact of white-collar criminal activities;

Need to heighten public awareness as to the methods of preventing

crimes and recognizing those that do occur, through the dissemination of public information;

Need to foster cooperation and communication among the agencies and

offices;

Need to establish focal points within the loosely associated, but relatively independent members of the law enforcement system to main

tain a national perspective of the white-collar crime problem;

Need to establish an information system whereby national trends and
patterns can be identified;

Need to encourage investigators and prosecutors to work closely
together and to foster those relationships;

Need to reach an understanding concerning the types of matters the
investigating agencies will pursue, and the OUSA will prosecute;

Need to focus resources on quality cases and develop proactive
approaches to investigate them;

O Need to identify successful techniques in investigating and pro-
secuting white-collar crimes;

Need to provide training to some agency investigative personnel and prosecutors in order to utilize effectively new investigative and prosecutive techniques; and

Need to address the problem of inadequate sanctions, either available

or imposed, including the need to acquire legislative changes as
appropriate.

The ECE program was developed to meet the needs outlined above, and in so doing, to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the white-collar crime law enforcement system. Based on the above discussion, the study team prepared the chart in Appendix V to demonstrate the manner in which program goals and objectives address the needs resulting from the indicated obstacles

to effective law enforcement.

In addition, the chart outlines the national

and local responsibilities for accomplishing the program's goals and objectives.

PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The ECE program, encompassing two of the Attorney General's four enforcement priorities, was developed to focus attention on white-collar crime, emphasize its effect upon all citizens individually and the public good generally, and coordinate governmental efforts in attacking white-collar crime. The program's overall goal is to enhance the Department's ability to prevent, detect, investigate, prosecute and obtain greater sentences against significant criminal offenders. The program's implementing order and other background materials established end objectives* for attaining the Department's goal** of enhanced capabilities, but allowed the individual districts to develop the mean objectives,*** thus setting a uniform scope for the program, while retaining an aspect of local flexibility to account for individual district characteristics. The end objectives for enhancing the Department's capabilities in this program, listed below, are separated into the enhancement goals they are designed to achieve. The fact that some objectives appear under more than one goal is indicative of the overlapping nature of the obstacles to effective white-collar crime law enforcement, and to the needs, objectives and goals of the ECE program.

End Objectives - those objectives which, if accomplished, should result in meeting the program's goals.

** Goals the end toward which all efforts are directed.

*** Mean Objectives those procedures or methods designed to reach the

end objectives.