The cynic in me says that it really does matter who you defraud. Where Madoff went wrong was ripping off other rich people. So, if SBF defrauded more upper- than middle- or working-class folks, then he's screwed.
This is silly. You think the career DOJ prosecutors are looking at the list of victims and only deciding to prosecute if there is a rich person on the list?
A lot of the things that defraud non-wealthy people (multi-level marketing, all of those "supplements" you can buy in the medicine isle, false advertising) aren't illegal or practical to sue over.
Let's look at one particular example, the stop the steal scam. Thousands of people were tricked in to donating to the ringleaders of an impossible political cause based on false claims, and none of them are going to jail for that in particular. You could find dozens of similar examples just by keeping an eye on the news, but nobody thinks about it because a certain type of con with victims that professionals can't empathize with has become normalized.
In the US, we can't just convict people because they lost people money. You need to prove criminal intent. Are you aware of any evidence demonstrating intent to commit fraud?
Not sure what the size of banks has to do with anything.
Any evidence that specific executives at these rating agencies had the intent to defraud people by over-rating mortgage-backed securities? Simply being inept at your job is not necessarily criminal.
