Both are. Common sense dictates that if you're moving millions around, you MUST have enough money to buy yourself some security at physical or digital level. I'm not saying CERN-level security, but at least SOME security standards should be fulfilled. If the bank doesn't care, then it should be punished IMHO.

Same goes for the criminal.No matter how lax the security precautions of the bank are, an individual is judged for his crime.

The problem with cybercrimes and digital-rights related material (piracy, etc.) is that punishments are usually disproportionately severe. I believe that the fault lies to lawyers who over-sensationalize these crimes and judges who are totally unable to understand the real vs possible damage. For example, a 15 year old hacker who found a 5-years old XSS and hacked (as in copied 15 MySQL databases) from a CIA/NSA/FBI website and post his IRC nick on the page to brag about on his friends vs a 35-year old spy who sold these info to some other country for huge profits. These are different situations but are most of the time treated equally by judges.

99% of all houses are secured worse than any online account would be my counterargument, while holding items of much higher value, relatively.

Give me 15s with a crowbar and I will be able to enter almost any house. Crowbars are like 10 dollars at your local hardware store.

Physical security is almost always based on expected risk of detection and subsequent penalties, not prevention of ability to intrude, yet we somehow don't accept the same reasoning for digital security?

There is literally trillions of dollars worth of assets sitting around the world protected by nothing more than the idea of a closed door and some sort of expectation that a sheet of glass represents a barrier. Our society relies on a system where people respect the laws and have penalties enacted on them if they dont.