To run a further test of the viability of the typology, nine cases were examined in-depth, three from each category, and within those three categories, one each from the three identified subcategories. The major criteria applied to each were the following:
Was the main mechanism in transferring value force, free-market exchange, or fraud?
Did the transfer involve redistribution of wealth, creation of new income, or redistribution of income?
Did the transaction take place in a non-business (or fake business), underground network, or legitimate business context?
Was the main means of transfer of value property, cash, or bank instruments? Although these criteria sometimes overlap, each emphasizes a different aspect of the offence. The more of these criteria that can be applied, the less the range of ambiguity.
Choice of Cases
(1) Predatory Crimes
a) payment card fraud
b) bank fraud
c) currency counterfeiting
b) CFC smuggling
c) traffic in endangered species prohibitions
a) fraudulent bankruptcy
fraud against investors or suppliers
b) telemarketing scams
deception against customers
c) toxic waste dumping
illegal cost reduction at third party expense
12 Research and Statistics Division
Where it seems that, in the great majority of instances, an offence should be in one category rather than another, it is marked (x).
Where an offence seems equally at home in two or more, it is indicated (x) in all relevant categories.
Where a traditional category does not seem to suffice to capture all of the component acts of a particular offence, a second may be added (e.g., prostitution is listed separately from sex slavery in the above tables).
Where there is a good chance it could fall into more than one category, the most probable is indicated (x), with a (?) to show other possibilities.
The results are summarized in the following four tables (tables 5 to 8):