Actually, this isn't necessarily true. Example regarding the college admission scandal that demonstrates that just because a dollar wasn't "stolen", something of value was.

The admissions slots were stolen from the colleges and resold on the black market. Which is a crime, for good reason. We don’t have to act like there wasn’t a legal, primary market for the admissions slots already.

I think the key is not to understand this as a crime against other applicants, or the public, or “fairness.” It’s a crime against the schools.

The back door—“institutional advancement,” i.e., giving colleges tons of money—is fine, not because it is “fair,” but because the owner of the asset gets to decide the conditions of its sale. (The fairness of the front door is debatable too, by the way.) The side door is wire fraud, not because it is “unfair”—Singer says here that it’s one-tenth the price of the back door, which kind of seems fairer—but because consultants and coaches are misappropriating the asset and selling it for their own benefit. The law doesn’t protect fairness; it protects property.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha...

https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1105506383770894336

In the JPM fraud case specifically: (FTA)

Through these spoof orders, the traders intentionally sent false signals of supply or demand designed to deceive market participants into executing against other orders they wanted filled. According to the order, in many instances, JPM traders acted with the intent to manipulate market prices and ultimately did cause artificial prices.

Theft, by definition is when someone deprives the right of property from another person. Market participants should have been buying and selling at prices determined by the market. JPM manipulated that and created a profit as a result, thereby deprived other people from their profit.

So yes this is absolutely theft, just not the physical theft you're used to seeing when a robber walks into a bank and steals cash.