Regardless of why he got suspension of penalty, if you read anything about the case it wasn't because he or his parents are rich. Personally I think there's more nuance than the clickbait headlines. I think he should not have gotten the penalty suspended but I can understand why that happened. The shortened motivation for this does read like ragebait ofcourse. His future should not have been as important as his cooperation, verifiable truthfulness and the fact he did abuse the state of someone who could not consent. Where that balance ends for punishment ends I find hard to say. But to reduce it to that he's rich is just populist nonsense.