IT IS HYPOTHESIZED THAT RULE ENFORCEMENT IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT IN THE CONTINUING SOCIETAL REACTION PROCESSES TOWARD DEVIANT BEHAVIORS AND THAT, ONCE A RULE IS CREATED, BOTH ITS INSTRUMENTAL AND SYMBOLIC FUNCTIONING DEPEND ON THE FREQUENCY, MANNER, AND DEGREE WITH WHICH IT IS INVOKED AGAINST TRANSGRESSORS. THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT WAS ENACTED AT A TIME WHEN PUBLIC MORAL OUTRAGE AGAINST EXPLOITATION BY BUSINESS WAS HIGH. WHILE CONTAINING CIVIL REMEDIES, THE SHERMAN ACT ESSENTIALLY CLASSIFIES VIOLATIONS AS CRIMINAL. HOWEVER, AN EXAMINATION OF ANTITRUST CASES FROM 1890 TO 1969 INDICATES THAT, OF 1,551 CASES, ONLY 44.7 PERCENT WERE CRIMINAL. LITTLE GOVERNMENT ACTION WAS TAKEN FOLLOWING INITIATION OF ANTITRUST LEGISLATION TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, AND THE COURTS ESTABLISHED A STANDARD RULE OF REASON FOR DECIDING SUCH CASES. IN GENERAL, THE NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS HAS VARIED FROM ONE ADMINISTRATION TO THE NEXT, WITH MOST RIGOROUS CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT OCCURRING DURING 1940-1944. WHILE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CASES INSTITUTED WAS RELATIVELY LOW, ABOUT THREE-FOURTHS OF THESE RESULTED IN CONVICTION, USUALLY ON A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDRE. HOWEVER, OF 536 CASES RESULTING IN CONVICTION, ONLY 4.9 PERCENT LED TO THE ACTUAL IMPOSITION OF A PRISON SENTENCE, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE INVOLVED LABOR DISPUTES AND/OR VIOLENCE. MOREOVER, WHERE FINES OR SENTENCES WERE IMPOSED, THEY WERE EXCEEDINGLY LIGHT. OVERALL, ONLY A HANDFUL OF BUSINESSMEN HAVE SUFFERED ACTUAL CRIMINAL STIGMATIZATION AS A RESULT OF ILLEGAL MONOPOLISTIC ACTIVITY OR RESTRAINT OF TRADE. IN EFFECT, ILLEGAL CORPORATE CONDUCT, WHICH IS REWARDED AND HIGHLY MOTIVATED IN THE BUSINESS WORLD, IS COVERTLY CONDONED. INCONSISTENT AND HAPHAZARD ENFORCEMENT HAS LED TO AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN REAL AND IDEAL CULTURAL NORMS AND HAS ALSO CREATED A HIGH DEGREE OF RULE AMBIGUITY. NONENFORCEMENT SIGNIFIES NOT ONLY FEW OFFENDERS AND OFFENSES, BUT ALSO IMPLIES THAT THERE ARE NO VICTIMS. THERE IS THUS NOTHING AGAINST WHICH THE PUBLIC CAN REACT AND NO ACTIONS WHICH CONTINUOUSLY REAFFIRM CORPORATE CRIME AS REALLY DEVIANT. THIS, COUPLED WITH PROPAGANDIZING THE BENEFITS OF BIG BUSINESS, HAS CHANGED PUBLIC ATTITUDE FROM CONDEMNATION TO NEUTRALITY. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION AIMED AT CONTROLLING WHITE-COLLAR CRIME ARE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (JAP)