All people are flawed but we are not flawed equally. There are many axes that can be drawn along moral and ethical dimensions and each one of us will fall at different points along them, having different strengths and weaknesses. It is next to impossible to extract an overall single score that would define our ethical and moral worth for comparison purposes, unless one decides to pick one axis as determinative over all the others. Doing so is what enables some people to feel morally superior to others. But even then, while it is hard to do that for positive values, there can be a particular moral and ethical dimension where someone is so bad that it overrides everything else and we can conclude that they are simply bad people, even if they have some redeeming qualities in some area. Sociopaths fall into that category.
As an extreme example, this Wikipedia page quotes a contemporaneous pro-Nazi children’s magazine about Hitler thusly:
“Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian, and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for the world of animals? Do you know that your Führer is an exemplary friend of animals, and even as a chancellor, he is not separated from the animals he has kept for years?…The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals, in particular vivisection, and has declared to terminate those conditions…thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals, from continuous and nameless torments and pain.”
Hitler was also apparently very health conscious and did not smoke or drink.
Even taking those claims at face value, I think that most of us would say that while these qualities are generally admirable, they by no means neutralize his horrendous attitudes towards Jews, the Roma people, Poles, and other ethnic groups that he and the Nazis considered inferior and condemned to death. In other words, where he stands according to that axis alone is sufficient for us to say that it does not matter if the scores on measures on the other axes are generally positive. He was a terrible person.
We can similarly conclude that it does not matter if Jeffrey Epstein was a philanthropist who gave a lot of money in support of science. He was a bad person. The same goes for the Sackler family. The fact that they gave a lot of money to the arts and universities does not neutralize the awful consequences of the way they pushed opioids on the public. Whatever else Jeff Bezos does, the terrible effect his business practices has had on so many people dominates over everything else. The same holds for war criminals or oligarchs who made themselves rich by inflicting suffering on so many people. It is not hard to conclude that they are all bad people.
But with ordinary people it is not easy to make a simple summative overall conclusion like that because we are a mixture of good and bad, and we should try to make judgments only along appropriate axes.