In 2008, the United States (US) suffered a financial crisis that was blamed on Wall Street, which was not convicted for its crime. This economic meltdown has affected not only US citizens, but the rest of the world. Subsequently, only two individuals, Michael J. of McGrath of US Mortgage Corp. and Lee B. Farcas, of Taylor, Bean & Whitetaker Morgage Corp., were sentenced to prison. Why are there only two convicted, when there were many other people involved leading to the financial crisis? Perhaps because financial innovations were not foolproof or risk-free? Or was it because the alleged criminals were high-profile financial figures? These issues raise questions related to the definition of crime and the sense of responsibility and justice, through the analysis of the classical perspective and the positive social point of view. According to Peter Just, justice for a crime is not based on revenge because the law is a ritual and is an integral part of the functioning of society (Tremblay 2013). This article will analyze the US financial crisis as white collar crime and how Wall Street managed to escape large numbers of criminal convictions. Structurally, it is divided into two sections: the white-collar crime debate and the question of justice for the 2008 U.S. financial crisis. To begin with, the white-collar crime debate is about how these types of crimes are viewed or be criminal offenses or not. Crimes are defined as social offenses against person, property, or are inherently evil. White-collar crimes are assessed as “nonviolent property crimes involving some element of fraud or deception.”1 In David Shichor's article “On Criminological Indifference to the Global Economic Meltdown,” he found that there was a lack... . half of the document ......n is very selfish. To conclude, white collar crimes have been interpreted as a legal gray area that has allowed Wall Street not to be a criminalized issue, due to the generalization of its definition. and the purpose of law from the point of view of classical theorists. In the literature review, the authors examined and evaluated Sutherland's definition of white-collar crime. This was the origin of his study, despite the lack of historical research. Others, however, believe that it is too vague and cannot be legally implemented. There has been a cross-examination of social positivism and classical theorists. The main position was classical theory and the notion of natural law which defined a crime as a violation of the law. The purpose of the law is to protect and deter crimes that have allowed white collar crimes to go unconvicted, as they are not legally recognized.