Wealth is exclusively produced, and it is produced in limited quantities. Laborers do that production not out of pleasure or benevolence, but with the expectation that the value they produce will be compensated back to them.
Our economy compensates individuals in many ways. One of which is through the ownership of things of value. Well, an ownership is a state of what is owned. Production requires an action, which differs from a state. Ownership thus isn't and can't be production.
Not being production means that the compensation received from ownerships subtract an amount of wealth without adding any. This reduction of wealth from the limited pool prevents the fair compensation of producers, which they obviously don't consent with. A prejudice is created.
We can explore the criminal codes to see laws that are applicable to such behavior. I find that extortion law is very conforming. The price of goods serving the generation of profits for ownership is unjustified, forcing producers to do labor without the fair compensation they expect, all while being threated by law enforcement who enforces all market prices, justified or not.
So, to me, the conformity of the action to the crime is more than obvious.
Prosecuting capitalists would mean that only labor compensations would be permitted. The ownership of capital would either not be possible, or it would be done through something like a decentralized wealth fund where the economic advantages of generating profits from capital would be canceled by being distributed equally. Our economy would finally work for its population as a system that fulfill needs rather than generate profits.
Unfortunately, the behavior of generating profits from impersonal capital is well normalized in our society. Law enforcement and the judiciary would laugh at you for bringing these prejudices up. So I'm not sure how to move around this obstacle.