Investigated, but not charged: elite deviance and the public trust

There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of accountability in contemporary society.

From P Sundramoorthy

The recurring spectacle of high-profile individuals being investigated by law enforcement agencies yet ultimately not charged or instead made prosecution witnesses or beneficiaries of deferred prosecution raises profound questions at the intersection of criminology, psychology and public ethics.

While the legal principle of the presumption of innocence remains paramount, the social and institutional implications of such outcomes are far more complex and deserve careful scrutiny.

From a criminological standpoint, this phenomenon is best understood through the lens of elite deviance. Elite deviants are individuals who occupy positions of power, influence or prestige and who are alleged to have engaged in unlawful or unethical conduct.

Unlike conventional offenders, their actions are often embedded within organisational structures, financial systems or political networks, making detection, investigation and prosecution inherently more difficult. The complexity of such cases frequently results in evidentiary challenges, where proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt becomes a formidable task.

Consequently, legal outcomes such as non-prosecution or negotiated settlements may not necessarily reflect the full moral or social weight of the alleged conduct.

In this context, mechanisms such as deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) or the strategic use of individuals as prosecution witnesses reflect what may be termed “negotiated justice”. These tools are not without justification. They allow enforcement agencies to secure cooperation, dismantle broader criminal networks and conserve limited prosecutorial resources.

However, they also contribute to a perception that accountability is unevenly applied. When individuals of high status appear to avoid formal charges while remaining active in public life, people may reasonably question whether justice is being administered equitably or strategically.

Psychologically, the persistence of such individuals in positions of social prominence can be explained through several well-established mechanisms.

One is the concept of moral disengagement, where individuals rationalise or justify their behaviour in ways that minimise personal culpability. Closely related are techniques of neutralisation, whereby actions are reframed as necessary, normal or victimless. These cognitive strategies enable individuals to maintain a coherent and positive self-identity, even in the face of serious allegations.

Equally significant is the role of status insulation. High-profile individuals often benefit from reputational capital, social networks and institutional affiliations that buffer them against reputational decline. The so-called “halo effect” can lead others to continue perceiving them as credible or respectable particularly in the absence of a formal conviction.

And such individuals also have other factors working in their favour, namely, the general public tends to forget such cases and the absence of definitive legal findings, which allows such ambiguity to persist.

From a psychological and societal perspective, the continued public visibility of such individuals often generates a strong perception of moral dissonance. Their confident participation in high-profile events, leadership roles and civic platforms despite having been subjects of serious investigations can be interpreted by the public as a form of moral indifference or reputational resilience.

Criminological theory suggests that this may not necessarily reflect an absence of moral awareness but rather the operation of cognitive frameworks such as moral disengagement and neutralisation, whereby individuals rationalise their circumstances and maintain a sense of legitimacy.

At the same time, this outward composure may also be reinforced by social validation within elite networks, creating an environment in which reputational consequences are muted. The result, however, is a widening gap between public expectations of accountability and the perceived conduct of those in positions of influence, further intensifying societal unease and scepticism.

Yet, the issue extends beyond individual psychology to broader questions of institutional legitimacy.

Criminology distinguishes between legal guilt and social legitimacy. The law operates on strict standards of proof, ensuring that individuals are not wrongfully convicted.

Society, however, often evaluates conduct through a wider moral lens, where suspicion, patterns of behaviour and perceived integrity play a role. When there is a visible gap between these two domains, when individuals who have been subject to serious investigations continue to occupy prominent roles without explanation, it can generate public unease and erode trust in institutions.

This leads directly to the central question: should such individuals voluntarily relinquish their positions in NGOs, professional bodies or other prestigious institutions? There is no simple answer. On the one hand, requiring immediate resignation risks undermining the foundational legal principle of innocence until proven guilty. It may also open the door to reputational harm based on incomplete or even unfounded allegations, potentially weaponised for political or personal ends.

On the other hand, positions of public trust carry expectations that extend beyond mere legal compliance. They demand a level of integrity, transparency and accountability that sustains public confidence. From this perspective, it is not unreasonable to expect that individuals who are the subject of serious investigations, even if not charged, should consider stepping aside, at least temporarily. Such actions are not admissions of guilt but acknowledgments of the importance of preserving institutional credibility.

A more balanced and rational approach lies in the concept of graduated accountability. Rather than adopting an absolutist stance of either full exoneration or total exclusion, institutions can implement structured responses. These may include temporary leave of absence during investigations, the establishment of independent ethics committees and clear governance frameworks that distinguish between legal outcomes and ethical responsibilities.

Transparency in decision-making is crucial, as it reassures the public that due consideration has been given to both fairness and integrity.

Ultimately, the persistence of this phenomenon reflects deeper structural realities within the criminal justice system. Complex investigations, resource constraints and strategic prosecutorial decisions all shape outcomes in ways that may not align neatly with public expectations. However, when such outcomes consistently appear to favour those in positions of power, they risk fostering perceptions of selective enforcement and systemic inequality.

The issue, therefore, should not be reduced to a simplistic dichotomy of innocence versus guilt, nor should it devolve into calls for indiscriminate social exclusion.

Instead, it calls for a more nuanced understanding of accountability in contemporary society. The critical question is not merely whether an individual has been convicted but whether the standards governing positions of public trust are sufficiently robust to maintain confidence in the institutions they represent.

The challenge is to strike a careful balance between protecting individual rights and preserving collective trust. Failure to do so does not only affect the individuals concerned; it undermines the very legitimacy of the systems meant to uphold justice. - FMT

P Sundramoorthy is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research at Universiti Sains Malaysia. He is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.