This seems to be an allusion to Matt Levine’s writing that “everything is securities fraud”.
It’s not as cynical against companies as you think. The overall point is that sometimes there’s a lot blurrier line between legitimate activities and what someone could interpret as securities fraud than you’d expect.
This is not the case. They can and will take any information in the worst possible light. They want fine and convictions not for the fair decision to be made.
You are saying they want slam dunk cases, but are apparently obtaining these outcomes using evidence that can go either way? You don't see the contradiction there?
The judicial system is adversarial by nature. The goal of the prosecution is to put forward its best possible case that basically means assuming the worst of any piece of evidence.