I would say to the author (or more likely the "snazzy-title editor" at Forbes):
Dude...Ken Lay is Dead. Deceased. Gone on to his Great Reward. Finito.
Sure, in the end he doesn't pay a criminal-court-mandated monetary price, and his prison sentence was effectively reduced to 'time-served', but....he.....is.....still..... dead.
No doubt having paid with his life through the stress of choosing the 'dark side' and getting caught. Now his victims can seek monetary redress EARLIER through civil courts. I hope they find some compensation for their pain and discomfort caused by Ken Lay(et al's) misdeeds.
What is the motivation behind the author's article? Was he planning on milking the story through the appeals process and now he has to work hard to find some other scandal?
I can visualize the author of this Forbe's piece in the 19th Century Wild West:
Died?! Died?! Goll'durn it Sheriff, we rode three days ta' get here from Alkali Flats so weez cuud see us a hangin'! Now I don' care if the varmit IS dead, String 'em up anyways!