But (a) laws don't work like that (b) selectively enforcing rules (especially those designed to prevent fraud and deception) isn't justice or ethics, and (c) he genuinely did something wrong-- multiple things wrong. He deserves to face adverse consequences for those choices.
People are perhaps sympathetic to Elon because he shows more potential than other CEOs, no? Did the judge in the case above show leniency because 'he liked her'?
For b) rather than selectively enforcing rules, this would be an example of discretionary punishment, which is absolutely a part of justice and ethics, as in the case above. Some could interpret your argument to support mandatory minimum sentencing, which many don't believe works.
You have to weigh the good and the bad, and thus far I'd say it's no contest. Elon has contributed far more upside.
Tesla is doing wild things which are causing crazy growth, but also crazy panic.
But the critics of Musk's behavior would respond, I think correctly, that there is a categorical difference between "wild things which cause crazy panic because they are high risk with high upside potential ('crazy growth')" and "wild things which cause crazy panic because they are high risk with little to no upside potential." And while perhaps sometimes it's difficult to tell whether a certain Crazy Elon Thing falls into Category A or Category B, things like "let's accuse someone who criticized me of being a pedophile, that'll teach him" or "hey, we have nothing signed and this blatantly violates SEC rules, but screw it, it'd be funny if I said we were going private at $420 a share, because 420"? Those are very clearly things that are in the "little to no upside potential" category.