While I agree with you, the problem is trying a person is at the discretion of the state. I suspect the state was motivated by Shkreli's public reputation when they otherwise wouldn't be as motivated to prosecute if it were someone else of lesser celebrity, particularly since the investment outcome was overwhelmingly positive.
Perhaps our point of disagreement is this: I believe that justifying objectively blatant criminality via the "discretion of the state" defense is counter-productive to changing this situation.
