Occupational crime contrasts with corporate crime in that it is committed in the workplace by members of an organization for the purpose of achieving direct personal benefits or gratification for themselves. The immediate victims of such crime may be the organization that employs the perpetrators or a client who purchases or otherwise makes use of its services. One of the social and political trends of recent times is the transferring of more power from elected government into the hands of private- sector organizations. This includes actions by private organizations to deal with what they perceive as occupational crime by employees. It is inadequate and irresponsible for organizations to continue to act against crime as autonomous units. On the one hand a company may choose not to prosecute employees responsible for stealing large sums of money for fear of adverse publicity, yet the same company may severely punish those guilty of petty offenses to set an example to the rest of the workforce. Such practices undermine the basis of the criminal justice system, which is founded upon the ideal of the punishment fitting the crime and due consideration to the social context in which the offense was committed. There is little evidence that many organizations take these considerations into account when formulating their policies for dealing with employee offenders. The power of organizations to dismiss employees for any reason deemed proper by an employer gives the employer a draconian power to affect an employee's socioeconomic situation. Most empirical studies show that the most likely offenders in the workplace are 17- to 24-year-olds, whose socioeconomic future may be greatly affected by unfair punitive measures for petty occupational crimes. Although an organization has the right to protect its interests effectively and legitimately, there is a need for proactive rather than reactive strategies. Clarification of policy in the form of job descriptions, clearly indicating the employee's responsibilities, is the only logical way to protect the interests of the organization and the honest employee who might otherwise be unaware of what the employer views as unacceptable behavior.