[walrus01]

While I don't disagree with your points, it boils down to a defense by the persons accused of "We, titans of industry of finance, were so clueless, inept and incompetent that this unexpected thing happened. We definitely weren't intentionally trying to defraud anyone!". Doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement for people whose yearly salaries are >$500,000.

[charlesdm]

Making profits unethically doesn't necessarily mean it's fraud. The two things are very different.

I can knowingly sell you a crappy car, and if you sign an agreement that you bought and accepted the good in its current state, that's that. Yes, I acted unethically, but I didn't defraud you.

[Sabinus]

The rich have the ability to make their unethical actions legal, whereas the poor have no such sway in politics.

[cycrutchfield]

It has nothing to do with politics, but it may have something to do with the cost of legal representation.

[rayiner]

First, that's not the defense. The defense is that the 2007-2009 recession was a "black swan" event resulting from a confluence of factors that nobody expected. To date, I'm not aware of any economic work that points, with 95%+ certainty, to a specific cause of the recession.

Second, a successful prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific person performed each element of specific crimes. Defendants do not need to even present a defense--and in fact sometimes do not, relying entirely on poking holes in the government's case.

[cycrutchfield]

That is how our system of criminal law works, though. We would prefer 100 criminals go free to prevent 1 innocent person from being convicted.