Your point, as I understand it: you disagree with a jury's conclusion in one, high-profile case, therefore the entire justice system isn't necessary or there should be no consequences for white-collar crime.
Or perhaps more charitably: you've become disillusioned about the judicial process in general, seeing a lot of results you consider unjust, therefore the entire justice system isn't necessary or there should be no consequences for white-collar crime.
Neither is even a bit convincing. If one can significantly increase their personal wealth at mere risk of being fired, then the least honest people will accumulate all the wealth and power.
That kind of comparison is meaningless and useless. The question should not be, "Should we criminalize fraud if people disagree about the results of this one specific unrelated case?"
The question should be, "Should we criminalize fraud and if so what are the optimal penalties for disincentivizing new and repeat activity?"
