The scale of dishonesty in the upper reaches is just so vast that it tends to go unnoticed. We notice someone smashing a car window, we don't notice someone gaming the system to steal billions.

That immorality exists at higher pay levels has never been in contention, indeed I just got through saying that. The contention is that environmental factors are the primary causative agent in the type of crime being described here, i.e.- smashed windows, stolen stereos. The relative "honesty" of the party is largely irrelevant in the question of whether or not he will commit the crime. The part you quoted clarifies that contention, that the minimum level of moral culpability is directly related to environmental factors, and thus environment does impose ethics.

As for white collar crime, that just strengths my point. The most logical course of action in the Bush (and maybe the Obama?) era, with gutted regulation, no oversight, and powerful friends in power was criminal (well, unethical, the actual legality of the activates varied and may yet be subject to change). The environment is such that the risks for immoral behavior are minimal if non-existent, the rewards are extremely great, and what do you get? Pandemic "dishonesty". Similarly, in a neighborhood where muggings are quotidian, a stereo may be a sufficiently great monetary return to risk incarceration.

certainly not more 'moral' than the punk!

It depends how one quantifies "evil". Financial impropriety may destroy your savings, but it won't kill both your parents for their jewelry and make you Batman. So the comparison is many millions of tiny evils (defrauding investors), or a few great ones (murder).