Not if he's not likely to contribute in the future, if he's broke they no longer care about him

That seems unlikely - this is too blatant and, as we saw with Madoff, mismanaging your clients money tends to be taken more seriously than some other white-collar crimes.

I can't speak to the plausibility of this actually happening here specifically, but usually it is done to set an example for future folk who might try some funny business.

If they can't get their money back, then would they why not kill him?

So you're saying they should torture him first, extract some money, then kill him?

But that's how it works in the movies!

I guess in the more mainstreamed (or conspiratorial?) memeable circles, one would hope they don't get Epsteined; McAfee of the more recent note.

Time for some game theory...

Anger

To encourage their other money launderers to stay in line. Criminals can’t rely on things like contracts since they can’t take someone to court so one way to prevent cheating is the threat of violence against the person or their family.

In this case, I’d bet that he’s safe if he ends up in federal custody since being in prison is also effective punishment from this perspective. If not, it’s easy to imagine something happening to him if he tries to hide somewhere since the message “you can’t run far enough” will heard by everyone in that world.