This article analyses functions and follow-up problems of substantivized criminal law. Its background is the present debate on the substantivation of law, following Max Weber’s early observations, and the criminal justice related debate on diversion, intervention, and deformalization. The concept of substantivation is systematized by distinguishing legislative and legal decision making vs. the implementation of intervention, control, and punishment on the first dimension, and particularization and diversion on the second dimension. A definition, examples, functions, and follow-up problems are presented for each of the resulting fields. Most empirical cases are drawn from research on legislation and sentencing of white collar offenses and from sentencing research in general. A look at neo-classical developments of US-American criminal law, using the case of sentencing guidelines, documents that the solution of follow-up problems of substantivized law is not possible through reformalization. The article ends with a look at the developmental perspectives of a type of criminal law, that has become and will continue to be substantized due to its structural context.