Off the top of my head I'd look at who their crime affected and to what degree, why the perpetrator did it, whether it was premeditated or done in the spur of the moment, what other options the perpetrator had, etc.

Someone who is intellectually mediocre, grows up around violent scumbags, and ends up robbing others instead of working a job is reprehensible, but I would say less so than a Bernie Madoff who was already wealthy, highly capable, and decided to defraud people of their life savings over decades. Madoff is not someone like Martin Shkreli bullshitting wealthy investors out of some portion of their wealth, he's someone who ruined people's lives.

People often discount "economic" crimes that they can't directly see the harms of, like insurance fraud, welfare fraud, tax cheating, corruption etc. That's easy to do in places like the US, but becomes more obviously problematic in places like Southern Italy or Argentina whose economies have gradually been destroyed by a widespread acceptance of corruption, cheating and "economic" crimes.

Not GP but I might throw in my opinion. While you focused on the crime itself GP focused on the person committing the crime. That way I can agree to both of you. While the crime of fraud is less morally wrong than armed robbery to me, the person committing the robbery very likely has a very different background and less choices. It might seem to be the only way to feed their family or a very natural way as they were grown up with it. While for fraud its about having more and more money, mostly for living a luxury life.