His case is kind of weird when you really look into it. No one actually lost money in the fraud he was convicted of. What he did was lose a lot of investor money (by day trading when he was supposed to be running a hedge fund). Instead of giving back what was left, he rolled their money into his new company. Which... was a massive success, and the investors got a great return on their money.

So what he was actually convicted of (not the drug markups) does create the appearance of a "victimless crime". But that's only because he's the 1 guy in 100 of these stories who's insane gamble to win back his losses actually worked. It's not okay to do this even if it does happen to work out, so it still needs to be punished same as other attempted crimes.

Also there's the matter that the investors thought they were putting their money into a traditional hedge fund, not a scheme to mark up drugs for AIDS patients.