This is the reverse of the question as it is usually asked on this site.
It was almost unseemly: Goldman Sachs snaps its fingers, and the FBI almost immediately begins a surveillance of a suspect who had apparently The man, Alynnikov, was arrested a day later.
The prosecution wanted to the judge to deny bail, a la Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford, because the stolen code "could be use to manipulate the market in unfair ways." The judge, to his credit chose to disagree. This was an alleged crime against GOLDMAN, not, presumably a crime against society. Therefore it was a "garden variety" economic crime, meaning that the normal niceties of "free on bail" were available.
Moreover, the judge ruled that the prosecution had presented no evidence that the stolen information had been improperly misused (as opposed to could have been),and insisted on basing his ruling on facts, not speculation. Therefore the culprit was allowed to go free on bail.
Godlman wants to "put away" a crininal that has certainly eroded its trading advantage, and worse, made a fool of it. Goldman is even willing to ahve the prosecutor allege that the stolen advantage would be "unfair" in the wrong hands. In doing so, it acknowledged the possession and creation of an advantage that presumably would be unfair in the "right" hands. In seeking to condemn a THIEF, Goldman basically condemned ITSELF.