Maybe I'm naive but I think there used to be at least a modicum of self-restraint on this kind of thing. Sure, people always tried to make as much money as possible, but there used to be some limit somewhere - not because you'll get caught but because c'mon, we just don't do that! That seems to have now been totally lost.
Edit:
Also, in the West society in general is one of abundance with people housed, clothed and educated in school from birth, which IMHO removes a lot of incentives for scams and fraud.
But it used to be (and still is in some countries) that most people were born with nothing in a very tough environment and had to fight just to eat every day. The world of Charles Dickens was real.
I think maybe, in the immediate past in the West it was better.
We still lived and worked more locally, standing with neighbours mattered; corporations had less power than governments; governments were less able to manipulate their citizens, perhaps.
Politicians seem to have learnt to give just enough to quell the riots and pervert the system for maximum financial gain for those who control them; spreading losses across all those being exploited. The UK's conservative government stole something like £30B using preferential contracts in just two areas (IT, PPE supply) during the pandemic.
In the recent past it seems highly unlikely that someone sacked twice for lying, Alexander Boris de Pfeffle Johnson, would get a job as an MP, nevermind becoming PM. In the past it would be inconscionable, now the party seems to shrug and say 'he brings in a lot of a Russian campaign money, lets make him PM'.
In the UK there has been a systematic removal of scrutiny and oversight: choosing BBC management, choosing the civil service boss (it was previously always under open competition), changing the nature of parliamentary oversight, and of course Brexit helps considerably to this end.
I've no doubt it was worse in the middle ages, but considerable doubt it was worse throughout the 20th Century.
Before many things were kept secret or could at least be kept out of the press. Now everything is photographed and filmed, and politicians have the bad habit of using messaging apps instead of making quiet phone calls or simply of having a private chat and so they leave plenty of incriminating evidence in writing.
It certainly could be that despite the appearances being better in say, 1950-2000, that actual corruption was equal or worse, and most of it went undetected and unpunished!
But my take is that it wasn't as bad, because shame used to exist. A politician would "resign in disgrace" when caught in a medium-to-large scandal (even one that seemed technically irrelevant to their responsibilities, like 'sex scandals'). And he would stay out of public life thereafter, out of shame, knowing he couldn't run for office again and win because of their shameful past. Compare Richard Nixon vs. Bill Clinton.
That's what changed. Now it doesn't matter how shameful and corrupt your conduct was, you just either deny or answer with whataboutism towards the other party's worst sins, and carry on, and for some reason voters are consistently fine with this!