Verified by 
Or would he be described as being less intelligent? If that be the case, what could be said for the numerous numbers of investors he so easily defrauded? The argument of "the hypothesis" which offers a novel hypothesis that suggests that when third formal party enforcers are weak, so called more intelligent people will resort to criminal activities, while less intelligent people would eventually cease from criminal activities, makes no sense. If "less intelligent" people commit more crimes in a modern era, because they cannot adapt to the novel concept of formal third party enforcers, or adapt to alternative means to acquire resources, what difference would it make in the criminal life of a "less intelligence" person in the absence or lack of significant influence of any formal third party enforcers?
Being a "criminal" has nothing to do with one's level of intelligence; or the relationship one's level of intelligence has with the strength or weakness of formal third party enforcers. Instead it has to do with where a person's values lie on the spectrum of sociopathy and empathy. Regardless of one's so called level of intelligence, if a person believes that the only way to achieve any level of prosperity is at the expense of another human being, no heightened level of third party enforcers, or level of intelligence for that matter will prevent such a person from acting out on his or her beliefs.
"This so called hypothesis" seems to regard human beings as creatures without passion, as simplistic creatures driven by simple wants and desires. Interpersonal crimes, such as murder, rape and robbery, are not natural human acts, and have never been. If such acts were natural, people wouldn't care to bury their dead, or provide emotional support for a loved one who has been hurt. Interpersonal crimes simply put are symptoms of a sick human brain.
In recent years there have been a number of brain research studies that have provided evidence that human beings are hard wired for empathy, take for example, this article. For human's beings to survive, the ability to work together in a social setting is vital. I would agree that formal third party enforcers are relatively new in the evolution of human beings. This is because traditionally human beings have lived in clusters of small groups, and in recent centuries, people have aggregated into larger groups, such as towns and cities, making it more likely that small families will become increasingly isolated and there wouldn't be a uniform rule in the rearing of off springs.
People, who grow up being emotionally disconnected to the world around them, tend to rate low on any scale of empathy, because their ability to connect with others on any level is relatively low.
Intelligence is a fluid dynamic, largely specific to a collection of schemas relative to one's own experiences. The idea of determining another human being as being less intelligent is an age old political tool used to objectify any person or group of persons as being valueless and less than human and for atrocities committed against such persons to be acceptable.
