I use the word both as the name of the set of impositions against which we use the threat of force in retaliation, and as a specific subset of crimes: those that are physical and interpersonal. I would prefer not to use the word for both, but I can’t find a good substitute
Criminal : imposition of costs by physical means.
Unethical ; imposition of costs by informational means.
Immoral : imposition of costs by external means
Conspiratorial : organizing to impose sustainable costs.
Warfare : Organizing to impose unsustainable costs (conquest)
So I would say all imposition of costs is criminal in all cases.
And I would say that imposition of costs by interpersonal physical means is criminal.
To add to the confusion, just like we say we use the term moral for subjectively, normatively, and objectively moral rules, but only objectively moral is in fact moral; just as we say regulation and legislation are law, but only law is law – the others are commands. We can use the word ‘crime’ loosely, and we usually do, by referring to that which is enumerated in law. So there is normatively punishable crime and normatively unpunishable crime, versus objective crime.
So how to get around this problem? I tend to speak in objective terms, and then use the adjective ‘normative’ or ‘legal’ to refer to normative and institutional crimes.
Objective crime: those impositions of cost which we can and will retaliate against.
Objective crimes: physical interpersonal crimes.
Legal Crimes, or Crimes in Law: those crimes that are captured in law.