It seems to agree with your comment, though not sure what they intended.
The implicit connection is that some of the unprotected deposits that were gambled away belonged to rich people.
Well, it's just a declaration of what theft is, phrased as though I don't know what theft is. Which is wrong, and also doesn't seem relevant.
Not quite true a lot of people seem to think that if you won the roulette spin that you committed no foul. At least in terms of how they argued SBF should be sentenced.
So as you said the commingling was a large part of their crime.
But they did commit a bunch of straight up theft of customer funds to pay for marketing, political donations or stuff like houses for the employees.