Sentencing Frauds: A Comparative Perspective

Abstract

This article examines the sentencing of different types of fraud and the principles that lies behind them. It shows that in the UK, most fraud offenders get off comparatively lightly – even when they have not pleaded guilty – but that offences involving overt damage to individuals are sentenced more toughly, in line with populist »law and order« attitudes, reinforced by media hostility to such frauds. However in the US, the more sensational cases have attracted very heavy sentences, in keeping with the tough guideline sentences revised after Enron. In continental Europe, systematic sentencing data (as in the UK) is difficult to find that relates sentences to specific sorts of frauds and fraud victims, but appears to be closer to the UK than to the US sentencing levels. Finally, the article raises questions about what sentences mean to fraud offenders from different social groups, and what are the social and cultural effects of sanctions, as well as whether such effects should be included in the retributive elements of punishments.