I'm not certain about the analogy in the article, comparing it to forcing a person to unlock a safe, because I don't know how the law stands on it. It would seem to me that a person could not be "forced" to unlock either, except in terms of being given jail time. Therefore, it would come down to whether the amount of time for contempt of court is greater or lesser than the time likely to be given, if found guilty of fraud. And from a criminal perspective if the content of the laptop contains info that could track the money involved, allowing it to be recovered, that would also enter the equation. One way or another, a criminal must pay for their crime.