I guess the argument goes, that the woman who dresses skimpily in a dark alley deserves to get raped.
Similarly, people are responsible for the decisions they make, even if it is influenced by fraud. It is true that the fraudsters are the bigger criminals, but some blame must go to the gullible as well too.
In this particular situation, the gullible would have lost probably a similar amount of money regardless of whether or not Hunter came in and took their money or not. Yes, he did in a sense "profit" from this scam, and in a sense did take the money that was a part of the scam. But even if he did not take the money, then someone else would have taken it - perhaps the shares price might have been less volatile, or perhaps larger... hard to say.
If he is guilty of anything, it would be hurting other people's feelings... mainly by bashing everybody, including the gullible.. but otherwise, not much else.
