"That most heinous of crimes, theft of money [from rich people]."

The same thing happened with the Fyre Festival. The organizers didn't face consequences from defrauding the people they sold tickets to. They face consequences from defrauding the investors.

That's why they put the hammer down on Bernie Madoff - he stole from the ultra wealthy. If he had been robbing the little people he would have, at most, spent a couple of years at Club Fed.

how much effort should the prosecutors spend on prosecuting more challenging charges, when they had a bunch of easy ones? are they morally obligated to prosecute every single charge that might apply?

I hate this take because I hear it all the time and it's simply incorrect, at least in relation to Holmes' case.

In a court of law you need to prove your case, with evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence that Holmes lied to investors for the purposes of getting money, and that she knew she was lying and did it purposefully, was undeniable - there were too many smoking guns. The evidence that she knew she was defrauding patients was always less clear cut.

Besides, the prosecutors did try mightily to convict her of crimes against patients. Are you saying the 12 randomly selected jurors who found her not guilty of these crimes are in cahoots with "the current state of the justice system"?