Actually I was trying to look at it from the perspective of the state. One of the roles of the state is to ensure compliance with the laws of the land (to implement the rule of law). The state is also interested in economic activity, and the promotion of it.
So there are two outcomes:
1) Mt Gox gets shut down, its creators go to prison.
State enforces the rules which is good, but also cuts out some economic growth (people lose their jobs, retail space leases get broken, etc etc)
2) Mt Gox gets brought into compliance.
State enforces the rules (now they are in compliance when before they weren't) economic contribution remains intact so people still have their jobs Etc.
Universally governments prefer #2 over #1, for violations involving process compliance, because #2 costs less and doesn't impact tax revenues long term. They insure future compliance with fines and/or periodic audits.
All bets are off if innocent civilians are endangered or gross damage to the property occurs etc. Or, like in Enron's case, the tax payers are massively ripped off. So when Walmart creates rules that make their workers work overtime that isn't paid, the response is a fine and regular audits. Not shutting down Walmart or locking their stores where violations occurred.
The whole theory of government is predicated on ensuring compliance rather than locking everyone up. The latter isn't scalable and its not the best thing for the people being governed.