The last sentence is literally "The fact that he failed does not mean that he intended to steal from the rich".
The commenter was very clearly disputing SBF's _intent_ to steal. _You_ may doubt his good intentions for that theft (quite reasonably), but that's not the point that we are debating.
Not only did panarky clearly dispute intent to steal, they specifically said that there's a lot of evidence of intent to help people: "There is a lot of evidence that he intended to maximize trading profits and use those profits to help people."
Juxtaposed with zero evidence of intent to steal.
I'm sorry, but I believe you have misread the thread completely.
The commenter was very clearly disputing SBF's _intent_ to steal. _You_ may doubt his good intentions for that theft (quite reasonably), but that's not the point that we are debating.