This quote succinctly encapsulates the motivation for organizing the Handbook of White‐ Collar Crime in its current form. White‐collar criminology has struggled with conceptualizing its primary outcome of interest since Sutherland coined the term “white‐collar crime” in 1939. Ultimately, I believe that a failure to define any concept results in confusion surrounding how best to observe, record, understand, and improve that concept. This struggle is not unique to white‐collar crime, but the failure to clearly conceptualize the term has – in my humble opinion – stymied research and practice in this domain. Definitional ambiguity means that the behaviors considered “white‐collar crimes” by one person likely differ from another person’s imagery of the term. In other words, if people consider white‐collar crime to be “… a violation of criminal law by a person of the upper socio‐economic class in the course of his occupational activities” (Sutherland 1941, p. 112), their recommendations for researching and preventing such crimes will diverge from proposals by someone who defines such crimes as “… an illegal act or series of illegal acts committed by nonphysical means and by concealment or guile, to obtain money or property, to avoid the payment or loss of money or property, or to obtain business or personal advantage” (Edelhertz 1970, p. 3)