The changing place of fraud in seventeenth-century public debates about international trading corporations

Abstract

This essay surveys the changing role of fraud (dishonest and immoral commercial practices) in public justifications for corporate management of overseas trade in England across the seventeenth century. It argues that the perceived likelihood of fraud in international commercial settings played a critical role in public justifications for trading corporations at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The essay suggests that these justifications were challenged from the 1690s. The essay explores three aspects of this challenge: first, the ways in which agents of the East India Company convinced the Company to liberate private trade (an activity previously defined as fraudulent by the Company and the Courts); second, the arguments from the 1680s that depicted the joint-stock corporation as an unaccountable, soulless entity whose claim to public trust looked less credible; third, how decades of accumulated experience of international trading contexts (and interactions with non-European merchants) prompted pamphleteers to promote the possibility (and reality) of unregulated trade in those settings. All three helped to erode the former association between private individual trade in international contexts as likely to encourage dishonesty, immorality, and fraud. This change therefore led to the corporate body itself becoming a possible vehicle for fraud rather than the individual international merchant (who the corporation was meant originally to regulate). The paper analyses public deliberations about fraud and corporations to make interventions in the history of economic thought, the history of trading companies, and the history of economic crime (and especially its rhetorical role in debates about the regulation of trade).

Financial fraud, scandals, and regulation: A conceptual framework and literature review

“…Detection of fraud is part of its social construction which evolves over time. For instance, in the course of the seventeenth century, British private overseas trade lost its previous connotation of fraud, while the East India Company as a corporation came to be criticised as being a vehicle for fraudulent practices (Pettigrew, 2018). It is crucial to acknowledge here that we are seeing the contested practices through the eyes of the authors of the studies and that they themselves socially construct fraud.…”

International financial fraud: economic and psychological aspects, classification and ways of minimization

“…Thus, according to experts, «corporate fraud occupies the third line in the rating of the most serious threats to business in 2019» (Siering, 2021). In world practice, every year companies lose about 5% of their profit (Pettigrew, 2018) or from 5% to 12% of their gross income (according to other sour cesfrom 7% to 10% of their annual turnover) due to corporate fraud (annual losses from such economic crimes amount to approximately USD 4 trillion on a global scale). In Russia, this figure reaches 15% (and we are talking only about losses made public by companies).…”

Company-states and the creation of the global international system

“…At the beginning of the early modern period, there were many precedents for the principle that collectivities could claim the status of corporations, and exercise powers of governance. The subsequent innovation was to adapt institutional forms originally designed for local governance to perform a new transnational role (Pettigrew, 2018: 309).…”

“…the right to wage war, conduct diplomacy, collect taxes, and dispense criminal justice), with the profit-making imperatives and joint-stock ownership of the private corporation. These institutions confound modern divisions “between the public and private, between political and economic, between the market and the state, the domestic and international, and between sovereignty and dependence” (Pettigrew, 2018: 306). Neither purely private entities, nor mere proxies for their home states, company-states first emerged in the early 17th century.…”