So reading through the article, his main argument seems to be
"There are bigger fish in the sea so why are you even going after me?"
In the US there is a real problem with selective enforcement in general but this is BS, the fact that someone else is breaking the law worse doesn't make your crime not a thing.
1. He's right, biased enforcement is a crime against society.
It encourages increased criminality by those who are "above the law", and unfairly harms the personal social networks of prosecuted criminals, while the personal social networks on non-prosecuted criminals thrive and have relatively more social power.
2. Random(ish) enforcement is a cost-effective deterrent. Convict 10% of the crooks, make them pay 11x their gains, and the expected value of the scam goes negative, deterring rational scammers.
Reminds me of the time I was walking around New Orleans around 3am, passed a disheveled partier up against a wall being cuffed. In the brief moment of passing, I heard him say to the cop, in that paradoxical clarity only the uber-drunk possess, "You know serial killers exist, right?"
"There are bigger fish in the sea so why are you even going after me?"
In the US there is a real problem with selective enforcement in general but this is BS, the fact that someone else is breaking the law worse doesn't make your crime not a thing.