I think this is an interesting perspective because there have to be some unconscious biases at play to see these things so differently, even down to one person 'tricking some investors' and the other 'terrorizing individuals for their gain'. Furthermore, one of these people is 'more evil' and 'more dangerous'. In my own mind there's an element of classism involved because of how we see these two kinds of people so differently, and how we imagine them to live their lives.

In that sense, this CEO could be like the Sackler family - responsible for so much suffering across American society for the past decade or so, but because the scale is so large they've effectively abstracted themselves away from the evil and terror they are responsible for. The implication being that the opioid addict gets the full judgment of the law and society for terrorizing individuals to feed their addition, but the people who made the addiction possible get away with being tricksters. The only reason Elizabeth Holmes doesn't approach that level is because she and her startup got caught before they could release their fake products at scale, before the more serious consequences would begin.

If you ask me, I'd prefer to see both being held appropriately accountable, preferably in a way that encourages rehabilitation and not retribution or cruelty.