That reminds me of when the Battlefield 4 game was banned in China, because one of the antagonists was a rogue Chinese general.
I remember thinking that the game would have had better odds if the plot had been about a unified and monolithic Chinese government doing willful evil instead.
Objectively, not arresting them indicates they are not in control more than arresting them would.
mass arrest -> leads to questions about why 1000's of young couples are being arrested due to them not wanting to pay mortgages on houses they can't move into for years, and has no construction progress (the construction is abandoned), and this is a contagion that will lead to another city starting to rebel, leading to more mass arrests. Not talking about 1 or 2 people, but thousands.
vs.
the central government is taking care of the people by forcing a company into bankruptcy so they can't take advantage of people anymore.
The 2nd is the better narrative. That's what they picked. Doesn't make sense, but is what happened.
What you are also missing is that sometimes, parties are not allowed to abandon ship. Couples who have bought homes with mortgages but are not moved in for years are not allowed to give up, they are not allowed to stop paying on threat of imprisonment.
The organizations on the countersign are also not allowed to give up on mortgages because the existence of their company is at the will of the government.
There was an uprising where people banded together and just stopped paying their mortgages and basically threatened the local police to mass arrest them, and that's one of the things that spurred the greater bankruptcy, because the government didn't really want to arrest all the people, cause that would indicate they are not in control. And seeming to be in control is what the government will opt for every single time in every single decision they make.