| Summary: | As more people obtain online access and the finance sector becomes transformed by networked technology, opportunities for internet fraud grow. In recent years we have seen the maturation of new digital environments in which financial transactions can take place while at the same time we have seen an explosion in incidences of identity theft. This unprecedented rise in internet fraud is depressing growth in e-commerce activities and is creating growing demands by governments, the commercial sector and also the public for an appropriate model of policing. This thesis will explore the policing of internet fraud and it will argue the scope of police work with regard to white collar crime, because the public believe that police forces do not effectively control internet fraud and non-internet fraud. By drawing upon various global sources this thesis analyzes the tensions between the respective interests of the public and the private sectors. Such tensions raise concerns about how public resources are most effectively allocated in the public interest. Although internet fraud is a globalized phenomenon and indeed the UK and the US are notably mentioned, the analysis has specially focused on South Korea. At the core of the thesis is the observation that a major conflict of interests emerges when the private and public models of policing compete for "ownership" over internet fraud, so before exploring the laws, rules and enforcement models for policing internet fraud, it is first necessary to remove the tensions that exist between and within policing bodies. Two significant tensions were examined: firstly, the tension caused by different characteristics and objectives of private and public models of policing. Whereas the public police pursue the public interest thorough a public model of justice, the private sector polices problems in their own private interest along a private/corporate model of justice. Secondly, tensions are also created within the public policing sector by intra-govemmental competition. For example, the South Korean National Police have attempted to obtain independent investigatory powers while the Prosecutors' Office strongly defends its ownership of investigatory powers.
|
|---|
