Is that the only factor? Is insider trading objective? (hint: it's not, read the law). It's objective only when we can attribute a quantitative measure to it? What's the relative "value" of $1M profit from insider trading vs a single child's destroyed psyche? How much value could that child have contributed to the society had it not been for the harm done to it? Is there really much subjectiveness in terms of the harm done to those kids?

All that to say: I don't think "objectivity" should be the (main) factor resulting in existence of adequate punishment.

It is, I agree. My point is that the proportionality of consequences is not there. We seem to be good at criminalizing discrete, individual financial acts, but not systemic corporate decisions that cause diffuse harm. That's even when the aggregate harm is arguably far greater.