Researching the organization of serious crimes

Abstract

In a sense, the problem of organized crime is the concept of `organized crime' itself. The implications of shifting the analytical focus from explanations of `it' toward building theories of the organization of serious crimes are considered in relation to three ways of framing research: organized crime as an external threat; the organization of serious crimes through routine activities; and their organization through social relations. Beyond taxonomic assessments of various threats, organized crime groups, their regional theatres of operation and involvement in illicit markets, a major fault-line exists within social scientific studies of the organization of serious crimes over the appropriate scope of inquiry. Specifically, whether this should be limited to the particular settings in which discrete serious crime events occur and/or broadened to encompass the social structural antecedents of these events. This boils down to an argument over what constitutes the necessary relations for the commission of serious crimes for economic gain, and how their contingent concentration in certain places and moments amongst particular populations can be adequately explained. This also suggests that the interplay between more remote `distal' causes, situational opportunities presented by public and private sector controls, and pre-existing networks of relationships have to be understood in combination for an adequate explanatory account of the organization of crimes.

Organised Cybercrime or Cybercrime that is Organised? An Assessment of the Conceptualisation of Financial Cybercrime as Organised Crime

“…OC is often accused of as being used as Ba catchphrase to express the growing anxieties^on the expansion of illegal markets and the perceived growing undermining of the legal economy and political institutions (Paoli 2002: 51). Also, ambiguities around the notion of OC have reportedly been used for producing consensus around increased resources, domestic powers, and international cooperation in policymaking (Edwards and Levi 2008;Carrapico 2014), as defining a group of offenders as being OC orientates policing responses by allowing more resources and investigative power (Van Duyne 2004;Levi 2014). However, the presence of conceptual inconsistencies (or Bparadoxes^in the words of Paoli 2002) and ongoing definitional debates hinder the construction of a conceptual and analytical framework to forge advancements in both policing and research (van Duyne 1995(van Duyne , 2004Van Duyne and Nelemans 2012;Carrapico 2014).…”

A script analysis of the distribution of counterfeit alcohol across two European jurisdictions

“…When researching serious crimes, such as counterfeiting, it is critical to consider both how they are organised and the conditions that shape this organisation over time, rather than viewing them as being simply the activities of 'organised crime' gangs (Edwards and Levi 2008). Thinking in these terms allows us to consider both the localised nature of serious crimes and how such localised actions have global connectivity (see Hobbs 1998).…”

Crimillegal Orders: Revisiting Organized Crime’s Political Power

“…Basándome libremente en la obra de Marcus Felson (2006) y Adam Edwards y Michael Levi (2008), percibo a la crimilegalidad como un conjunto de patrones regulares de intercambio e interacción social entre el Estado y actores no estatales, públicos y privados que se sitúan en los márgenes de, o están flagrantemente en contravención a la ley establecida en un lugar y momento dado. Estos intercambios e interacciones sociales están situados en las zonas grises que se encuentran en algún lugar del continuo que se extiende desde el ámbito de la legalidad hasta el de la criminalidad.…”