I can see why you would think this, but this is a very unusual case. Particularly so given the decision in this article.
You're dead right in that rich people don't go broke like the rest of us - because they have accountants and lawyers set up complex business structures so if something falls over they can just walk away (or drive away in their nice car to their nice house).
This article is pretty much saying that all that usual dance isn't going to work in this case - he still has to pay $1.1b.
Also, there's no law that prevents him from going on making money. That may not feel "right" or just but that dynamic is the same even for poor people. That said, at 100k per month it would take him 916 years to pay $1.1b soo... he might curtail his luxurious lifestyle, maybe not.
Was there any discussion about this change? Or is this it.