1. I am convinced that fraud and crime are directly related to exploitation, and are the result of decisions and actions of people in a position of control. Those in control know they are committing these bad acts, and continue to do so, making them "baddies." As someone who was never in a position of managing control, but who eventually gained insight and perspective into the underlying business practices, when I recognized the fraud and crime, I made the decision to quit and report to the legal governing bodies. My opinion is that it was in the right of the company (and management) to "go for gold," but they went too far, broke the law, and were appropriately punished. I don't believe I was bankrupt in that I severed my relationship immediately upon my discovery of their true nature.
2. This may be semantics, but my point on companies relying on "benefactors" was actually more of a capitalism argument, in that a company can succeed regardless of treatment of employees or practices of skirting the generally-applicable moral ideals, so long as the end user is benefitting and continues to patronize the business.
I do appreciate your feedback because I am always doubting myself on certain projects as to the setting of my threshold for revolt: is it when I feel someone, somewhere is being exploited, or when I know that the business practices are actively and knowingly conducted against the current law?