Did he do everything to maximize the position of the corporation and the shareholders or did he act mainly in his own interests as a shareholder? There are no

Did he do everything to maximize the position of the corporation and the shareholders or did he act mainly in his own interests as a shareholder? There are no overt acts, I agree, but that also means a good DA can convince a judge that certain actions of his were primarily for self interest. The fact that he walked away with 1Bn dollar when other shareholders lost money does not look good. It is hard to argue that your actions were not primarily for self enrichment when you walk away with a ton of money and everyone else at the table loses. In a way his lawyers would have an uphill battle convincing the judge that his actions were primarily to further the enterprise and that through a series of unfortunate events he is the only one who ended up with a lot of money.