The authors draw on the white-collar crime tradition initiated by Sutherland and recharged by Geis, and they indirectly address the challenge posed by Tappan. Rather than attempting to answer the question regarding whose values should define what is "criminal," the essay provides an illustration of the process to which Sutherland referred, i.e., shifting legal definitions of criminality in response to corporate power. Specifically, the authors show how bankruptcy, once considered a criminal offense punishable by death, has been decriminalized and destigmatized in tandem with its use by corporate actors and its central place in the new "casino economy" of finance capitalism. This discussion provides confirmation for Sutherland's proposition that white-collar crime is less frequent than street crime, in part because of the class bias of the laws themselves. By focusing on the ways in which historical definitions of criminality vary, rather than engaging in a normative debate about which behaviors are more socially injurious, the authors expose the limitations of the dichotomy constructed by Tappan and neutralize concerns about the injection of "private values" into the analysis. 67 notes