Are the cases "not strong enough" because A- prosecutors believe that these types of legal battles will be an uncertainty due to the massive wealth CEOs can use to leverage their legal teams, have massive potential political fallout, and/or are an undue burden on the taxpayers; B- the actions perpetuated are not singular and specifically provable, despite their obvious intent and illegality, but instead spread out over a network of subordinates/proxies creating a fig-leaf of plausible deniability; C- the laws were written by a state deeply indebted (on both sides of the aisle) to the funding provided by exactly these types of citizens and their massive personal wealths?

My point is: While I am a deep and firm lover of due process, I think there's alternative explanations for why these people weren't convicted of crimes that don't solely point to "they were 100% blameless and these accusations are without merit".

That's why people are writing these articles/still want blood from the investor class.