With Herbet Edelhertz (1970) argued that Sutherland's definition of white-collar crime should be modified "...should not be limited to work-related crimes and that white-collar criminals do not have to be people of high social status.” (Coleman 2005:3) He quickly defines what he means by white-collar crime, stating that white-collar crime means an illegal act or series of acts committed. acting behind someone's back, to gain money or property, to evade a payment, loss of money, property, or to gain a business or personal advantage over that person or company This means that committing a white collar crime is simply deceiving and deceive someone. Another question raised by Edelhertz was whether the term should refer only to criminal activities or should also include non-criminal activities considered deviant. And how should we determine what is a white collar crime, which of the criminal acts should fall into this category. Whereas with Sutherland's notes on white collar crime, he seems to focus only on crimes that occur in the workplace, not those committed privately such as receiving/buying stolen goods or tax evasion. An alternative study to focus on is that of William Webster, director of the FBI in the 1970s. He was responsible for prosecuting prosecutions in this line of work and stated how white collar crime should be defined. Do you agree with Edelhertz that any crime based on cunning and/or concealment, which is broad and what he claims to be is a homeless man cheating people out of £1, is the same as a man of business hiding £1,000 theft? It is the same value as