3.0 Prevention There are two theories that attempt to explain how to prevent corporate crime: deterrence theory and compliance theory. Deterrence theories focus on preventing people from committing crimes based on fear of consequences. Compliance theories, on the other hand, focus on the power of regulatory agencies to encourage individuals to comply with the law before crimes are committed. The biggest difference between these theories is how the laws are applied to corporate criminals. Deterrence theories rely on criminal prosecutions to prevent corporate crime after the crime has already been committed (ex-post), while compliance theories focus on regulatory agencies encouraging compliance with the law before the crime has occurred. place (ex-ante).3.1 Deterrence TheoryDeterrence The theory holds that individuals act in accordance with their own self-interest and obey the law because they fear the sanctions of criminal behavior. Most of the time they choose not to commit crimes because they have seen harsh punishments imposed on others. Current research on deterrence highlights the role of the criminal justice system in enforcing and punishing offenders. The fear of being caught, convicted and punished following judicial proceedings forms the core of the theory of deterrence. Therefore, individuals decide whether or not to commit crimes based on weighing the possibility of punishment by criminal prosecutions versus their ability to profit from illegal activities. Although deterrence is one of the central goals of the criminal justice system, there is little consensus on the question of whether or not prosecutions effectively deter corporate crime. In a study conducted by the American Antitrust Institute, data was collected… document… is conducted and compliance validates the operational quality of the company. 4.0 Conclusion After a case like Enron, it is easy to be pessimistic about the prospects for change that could effectively prevent corporate crime. The ideas presented in this paper suggest that regulatory agencies can play a critical role not only in encouraging compliance with the law, but also in deterring corporate crime. It is clear that corporate crime has substantial effects on its victims, but companies or their executives are not always held accountable for their actions. Compared to prosecutors, regulators have more knowledge and resources to monitor companies, and potential violators better understand the penalties associated with regulation. For these reasons, the power of regulatory agencies to monitor business practices should be increased.