Summary point 5 is fun.

I conclude that the rate of criminal behavior amongst major philanthropists is high

Great!

which means that we should not expect altruism to substantially lower the risks compared to that of the general population,

Ok, not super clear what “the risks” are here. One interpretation is that they are saying “just because someone donates money doesn’t mean they aren’t a criminal”, which is correct. But it’s not clear! Anyway.

and that negative impacts to EA’s public perception may occur independently of whether our donors actually commit crimes (e.g. because even noncriminal billionaires have a negative public image).

So close! Why do “noncriminal” billionaires have a negative public image? It’s almost as if legality isn’t the decider of morality!

Perhaps one day EAs will gain class consciousness and a sense of morality beyond an uncritical elision of ethics via utilitarianism; we aren’t there yet.