Economic crime, often also referred to as white collar crime, is one of the most incidious and predatory of offenses. Unlike street crime, for which there may well be some protection, the average citizen is completely at the mercy of the perpetrators of economic crimes. The concept of white collar crime was first identified by Edwin H. Sutherland. He dealt with the problem as a violation of trust involving either or both misrepresentation and duplicity. He argued for the use of criminal sanctions rather than civil remedies as a means of dealing with white collar offenses. Sutherland's views were attacked by the legal profession, by sociologists and criminologists and by public opinion specialists. They contended that an act treated in civil court is not a crime; that criminals are those persons who are defined as such and white collar criminals are neither so defined nor do they define themselves as criminals and, finally, that economic crime is universal. Can anyone be criminal, then, ask the critics? A number of studies by Clinard, Quinney, Black, Ball, Cressey, Newman and others have translated the interest in white collar crime into empirical terms. The last thirty-five years have also witnessed the elaboration and alteration of the theory itself. Geis' work has been particularly important in this respect. His "street" versus "suite" crime is a useful dichotomy. Most important, however, have been the monograph and papers by Herbert Edelhertz who has conceptualized the issues on various levels - from consumer fraud to the illegal activities of the multinational corporation. This article is concerned with the exposition of the theory and research in the field. Most significant, the paper raises serious doubts whether the problem of economic crime can be researched and studied; it raises even more difficult issues concerning the legal and sociological implications of economic crime and of its prevention, management and control.