Without going to deep into the rabbit hole of "what constitutes nice and not-nice", I remember reading a study a few years ago that came to the conclusion that individuals with less of a conscience and less empathy for others possess an advantage in business and political environments.
Which does make a certain amount of sense. We live in a competitive society that doesn't really condemn dishonest practices. The average person would probably say that they disapprove of lying and manipulation, yet simultaneously the average person would also probably acknowledge that both practices are rife within politics and business, and feel ambivalence about it. Despite seeing dishonesty as immoral, most people accept that being dishonest is simply "part of the game" when it comes to these ventures.
The result of this dynamic is that someone who is willing to be dishonest can reap the rewards of making that extra effort with little risks- whereas someone who limits themselves to "honest living" is protecting themselves from an ostracism that doesn't really exist, and they don't really gain a whole lot in return. I feel like there's enough real world examples -the Thomas Edisons, Apple/Microsofts and Dick Cheneys of the World- to support that.
edit- To clarify, when I say dishonest I'm not referring to criminal acts. Obviously, "prison" is a possible consequence of that kind of dishonesty.