Obvious criminality is not the same as obvious non-criminality. You seem to be getting pretty worked up about this. The reason I don’t think the claim is obvio

Obvious criminality is not the same as obvious non-criminality. You seem to be getting pretty worked up about this. The reason I don’t think the claim is obviously untrue is because I believe the magnitude of wealth involved, and often the scale of operations/actors, increase the probability of actions ranging from morally dubious but legal to outright criminal. Per one of your other replies, we can quibble about the quote and what “behind every great fortune” means, exactly. You seem to be interpreting it to say that criminal action was a major factor responsible for the fortune, while I interpret it more loosely, the impact being irrelevant. At any rate, I doubt the quote is meant to be taken strictly literally, and is more of an aphorism.