I’d attribute this to the thread’s 2003 vintage.
Whoosh!
You don’t say! 
:smack:
Touche.
Sorry, I’m pretty new to the boards and rarely check the dates on these posts…
Yeah, just from watching the movies - never read the books - I was amazed how much of it seems to be a retelling of the Lord of the Rings. I was even more amazed that people were willing to disagree with me on that. I think Rowling would have just called every instance of it a “tribute”, from the exceedingly obvious (the fiery red dragon, one a firework, and one a magic trick, flying over hundreds of people dining at tables) to the mostly obvious (Voldemort binding his life to a “horcrux” if I remember right, Sauron binding his life to a Ring; each had to be destroyed to kill the maker).
How far off topic? So far off topic.
I don’t think the above is a crime at all. I don’t think it’s even bad. Perhaps her insufficient amount of credit given to the greats before her is bad - and the publicity stunt when she told everyone Gandalf was actually gay.
No, honestly, I think Balzac made a fair rule, but a rule with exceptions. After all, what is a “crime”? Current law aside, I can’t call something a crime if it has no victims. I think there’s been a lot of people who’ve amassed legitimate riches in that sense.
When I saw thread title, Bill Gates came to mind immediately as an example of a “criminal” fortune. 
I was surprised to see the zombies using him as an example of exception. (No, I’m not anti-Gates. There are plenty of other executives far more “criminal” than Gates who’ve achieved less success simply because they lack his genius.)
I noticed a recent news story about an engineer walking away from his technology employer with a flashdrive full of trade secrets. In my youth it was fairly well known that at least one Very Big Silicon Valley company got its start in a similar way. (There were no flashdrives in those days, so we’re talking about surreptitious blueprint copying in the nighttime.)
It may be rude to argue with a zombie, but drawing a distinction between “literal legal” crime and moral crime seems quite peculiar to me. (Though only “morally” peculiar, not “legally” so. ) I do understand that this distinction is quite popular in the Greed-is-Good culture of post-modern America.
Two 17 year olds have sex and are legally guilty of raping each other. Are they morally guilty of raping each other? Of course not.
Perhaps the crime doesn’t need to be committed by the owner of the fortune. To continue with the J.K. Rowling example, perhaps (and I’m not saying this is actually the case) her publisher did something pretty heinous. She didn’t do anything wrong necessarily, but there’s still a crime behind her fortune.
Mass producing expensive plastic crap in China for pitiful wages and in conditions so bad that your wage slaves regularly kill themselves might not be a crime but it really should be.