Leaving aside the question of whether evading a law through a technicality is alright (and surely the court will decide whether they were successful at that or

Leaving aside the question of whether evading a law through a technicality is alright (and surely the court will decide whether they were successful at that or not), but the indictment indicates they misled financial regulators, submitted a fraudulent verification system to regulators that falsified data, and indicated they sold the company to a foreign entity then continued to operate it surreptitiously through shell companies. This doesn't sound like squeaking by on a technicality. I really don't see why everyone is assuming these guys are in the right. I don't see much to support that claim.