Netflix’s latest drama Legends offers a compelling window into the criminology of undercover policing, covert surveillance and organised crime.

Inspired by a real UK customs investigation, the six-part drama follows ordinary British customs officers sent deep undercover to infiltrate drug trafficking gangs.

Written by Neil Forsyth (also creator of Brink’s-Mat robbery drama The Gold), Legends balances tension and realism with a measured, slow-burn pace that prioritises character over spectacle. Steve Coogan plays Don, a former undercover police officer tasked with recruiting customs officers to go undercover themselves to infiltrate drug gangs.

Much of its strength rests on the central performance of Tom Burke, whose portrayal of the lead undercover officer, Guy, anchors the series emotionally. Burke brings a quiet intensity to the role, capturing the unease, vulnerability, and moral ambiguity of someone living between identities.

The supporting cast also does an exceptional job, reinforcing the drama’s grounded and realistic tone, capturing the collective pressure, uncertainty and emotional toll of undercover work.

Becoming a legend

Unlike elite operatives, these are everyday officials thrust into extraordinary criminal worlds, making the series not just gripping television, but a sharp exploration of how undercover work reshapes identity, morality and survival.

The title itself is significant. In undercover policing, a “legend” is the carefully constructed false identity, complete with backstory, relationships, habits and a believable past. These identities must withstand intense scrutiny from criminals, meaning success depends on absolute credibility.

In Legends, officers must abandon their real selves and convincingly live as criminals to gain trust. This demands constant performance, producing intense psychological strain as loyalty to the state clashes with the need to belong within a criminal world.

In criminology, this reflects the concept of identity conflict. Undercover officers must operate simultaneously as agents of the law and participants in deviance. Howard Becker’s labelling theory is particularly relevant here: labels do not simply describe behaviour – they shape it.

To be effective, officers must adopt the identity of the “criminal,” often participating in minor illegality or forming close ties with offenders. As former undercover cop Don explains, “Your legend has to come from you, or it won’t work,” emphasising that a convincing undercover identity cannot simply be performed, it must feel authentic and internally lived to be believable.

Psychological unravelling

The result is moral ambiguity, where the line between observation and complicity becomes increasingly unstable. As seen in Donnie Brasco (1997) and The Departed, (2006) prolonged immersion can erode the boundary between professional duty and personal identity, leading not to control, but fragmentation.

Legends appears to centre on this psychological unravelling. These are not distant professionals but ordinary individuals removed from everyday life, required to deceive family and colleagues while facing the constant threat of exposure. This is particularly evident with Guy, who appears increasingly weighed down by the demands of sustaining his legend.

Even in controlled situations, there is a sense of constant vigilance in his interactions – carefully measured responses, restrained body language, and an underlying tension that suggests the effort required to remain convincing. At the same time, brief glimpses of his life beyond the operation hint at growing emotional distance, reinforcing how the undercover role begins to dominate his identity.

Criminologists describe this as role contamination, where it stops being a performance and begins to reshape the real self. The deeper the infiltration, the harder it becomes to return.

The criminal world they enter is equally significant. The series focuses on drug gangs, which links directly to organised crime theory. Drug trafficking organisations are not chaotic groups of offenders, but structured systems with hierarchies, codes of loyalty and mechanisms of control. Trust is currency; betrayal is often fatal.

For undercover officers, success depends on understanding not just who controls the drugs, but who controls fear, respect and power. This aligns with criminal enterprise theory, which argues that organised crime emerges in response to market demand.

Drug trafficking persists because prohibition generates profitable black markets, and criminal groups operate much like businesses within them. In this sense, Legends is not simply about crime, but about parallel economies embedded within society – where criminals may wield more immediate authority than the state.

In many communities, organised crime groups provide forms of protection, employment and dispute resolution where trust in formal institutions is weak. Drug gangs can become alternative authorities. For undercover officers, this makes infiltration even more complex because they must navigate a world where legitimacy is not automatically attached to the police or the government.

Instead, loyalty may belong to the gang leader who provides security or income. As it goes on, Legends is likely to show how dangerous this balance becomes when officers must earn trust in a system built on suspicion.

Legends also raises pressing ethical questions. Undercover policing relies on deception, manipulation and at times emotional exploitation. Officers may form relationships with people who are unaware they are being investigated, blurring the boundaries of acceptable state power.

If the law depends on deception to enforce itself, where should the limits lie? As films like Sicario (2015) suggest, the pursuit of justice can itself become morally compromised. Legends will probably explore this moral uncertainty, showing that successful infiltration often comes at a personal and ethical cost.

Ultimately, Legends is far more than a crime drama about drug gangs. It is a study of how states confront organised crime by constructing false identities and sending ordinary people into extraordinary danger.

This makes Legends not only compelling television, but also a valuable exploration of policing, identity, organised crime, and the hidden moral costs of state power.

Adriana Marin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Donald Trump has paused “Project Freedom”, the US operation aimed at restoring commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. In a post on social media just days after the operation was first announced, Trump said he had made the decision to give US negotiators time to reach an agreement with Iran to end the war.

Iranian state media has framed the suspension as a US failure. Iran had warned that it would target vessels attempting to enter the waterway and subsequently launched missiles and drones at civilian ships and the United Arab Emirates. It is unclear where the conflict will go from here. But whatever happens next, the role of China will be crucial.

China has kept Iran’s economy afloat in the first two months of the war. Before the war, China accounted for up to 90% of Iran’s oil exports, importing over 1 million barrels each day. Iran continued to send large amounts of crude to China during the war’s early stages, with CNBC reporting that at least 11.7 million barrels were shipped between February 28 and March 10.

Payments for Iranian oil have been processed by institutions such as China’s Bank of Kunlun and the Cross-border Interbank Payment System. These are alternatives to the US-dominated Swift global payment system that enable oil trades to be settled in yuan. This has helped Iran bypass western sanctions by putting oil revenues out of the reach of the US Treasury.

The flow of oil from Iran to China has dropped since mid-April, when the US imposed a naval blockade of Iranian ports. But China remains able to provide Iran with a revenue lifeline – albeit a more limited one – moving forward.

On May 2, China’s Ministry of Commerce ordered firms not to comply with US sanctions on five Chinese refiners linked to the Iranian oil trade. This enables the refiners to continue processing Iranian crude that arrives by train or is already outside the blockade area. Roughly 160 million barrels of Iranian crude were in transit or in floating storage at sea as of April 21.

China’s economic support for Iran is emerging as a source of friction between Washington and Beijing ahead of Trump’s upcoming summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In an interview with Fox News on May 4, the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said China’s continued purchases of Iranian oil amounted to funding global terrorism.

However, the influence of China over Iran’s economy gives it leverage over Tehran. And it does appear to be in the interests of China for the war to end. Rising prices are beginning to affect the Chinese economy, and helping the conflict come to an end would also assist the Chinese government in its push to present itself as the responsible global power.

China has already played an important diplomatic role in the conflict. While Pakistan has served as one of the key mediators between the US and Iran, many analysts have credited China as being the key driving force behind the April ceasefire. At that time, Iranian officials said China had asked them to show flexibility and defuse tensions.

China seems to have continued pressing Iran to negotiate with the US since then. Hours after Trump announced he was pausing the US effort to guide vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Beijing. This is the first time Araghchi has travelled to China since the war broke out.

In a statement released after the meeting, the Chinese foreign ministry said: “China considers that a complete cessation of fighting must be achieved without delay … and that continuing to negotiate remains essential.” Also after the meeting Araghchi said Iran would protect its “legitimate rights and interests in the negotiations”, but will “accept a fair and comprehensive agreement”.

Chinese military support

At the same time, there are some signs that China is hedging its bets. A protracted war involving the US in the Middle East has advantages for China too, primarily because it would divert US attention from the Asia-Pacific region. Reports suggest that China is considering taking steps that would help Iran militarily if a full-blown conflict returns.

According to US intelligence, Beijing has weighed transferring air defence systems to Iran, possibly routing the shipments through other countries to mask its involvement. CNN reported in April that the defence systems in question were shoulder-fired anti-air missiles known as Manpads. China responded by saying it “has never provided weapons to any party to the conflict”.

Chinese technical assistance also enhanced the effectiveness of Iran’s military earlier in the war. Since 2021, Iran has been implementing BeiDou, a Chinese satellite navigation system. As an alternative to the US-run Global Positioning System (GPS), BeiDou has helped guide Iranian missile strikes in the conflict and has enabled more effective monitoring of US military deployments.

China has played a key role in how the conflict has played out so far. And given its position of influence over Iran, it will be a leading factor in whether the war reaches a negotiated end or spills back into open conflict.

Tom Harper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.