Who's the Crook?

or, why socialism/anti-capitalism?

You're a pensioner, for example, and you've just been conned into giving away £2500 of your savings.

Or, you've just been fired from your job through no fault of your own.

Now, who's the crook?

Legally, in the first instance, the fraudster/conman is to blame and faces criminal proceedings. Morally, at least as far as society is concerned, the pensioner is blameless. But, they are not at risk of being in poverty.
While..
The person who has just been fired has somehow suddenly been laden with debt to several banks and a landlord and could face homelessness.

But, legally his/her former boss is not criminally responsible while, morally, some in society would say it is solely the responsible of the unemployed to find and keep paid work.
Except.
By this argument, is it perhaps the pensioner's fault partly that they lost their money? If they saved their money instead of spending it then they obviously didn't need it or, perhaps, they had more money than sense and it was just natural that it was taken from them. Also, if they weren't using it, was the money really stolen?

Now, who's the crook?
If the fraudster was the recently fired individual society says he/she is. But if the money stolen wasn't £2500, it was well over £700 million* and the fraudster was Sir Phillip Green, the morality of capitalism says he is an entrepreneur not a crook and no-one is calling for him to face prison.
But.
What if the defrauder of £2500 was just told to give the money back? There would be a moral outrage if the "offender" is not sent to prison.

Perhaps a more apt comparison is between Sir Phillip Green and Ronny Biggs. The money stolen amounted to £25 million in the infamous train robbery (check facts) and yes force was used but the amount is still a pittance compared to the plundering of BHS by Sir Phillip Green and he will never face prison.

*cost of the pension funds/amount owed in order to maintain