Was justice served? Not if you prejudge him guilty and from what I read here, that seems to apply to most.
Justice is not bunging a court a shedload of cash in order to bypass an actual conclusion and resultant judgement.
I'm not saying Bernie is actually guilty of the charges against him in this instance, or in fact guilty of any criminality thus far uncharged. I might suspect it, but I cannot state it as fact. And now it would appear it cannot be stated as fact he is NOT guilty of at least one act, as the procedure required to reach that conclusion has been bought off.
If I was on trial for embezzlement, then would it be considered acceptable or even possible for me to hand over a thirtieth of my net worth in order to avoid the nuisance of having to attend court? And in doing so of course avoid that tiresome matter of a judgement? Note, I'm not asking "If I were charged with, and guilty of", but merely that I was on trial for said act, regardless of actual guilt status.
It's a matter of justice failing. It shows that the (admittedly naive) view that justice is impartial to gender, wealth, age, status, is little more than a facade. It shows that if you are immensely wealthy then innocent or guilty you can brush off the legal process as a trivial irritation. It sets an example to others who may actually be guilty, that they can continue to act crookedly as long as they've kept a few million to one side just in case.
I would far prefer to have seen Bernie's trial run through to its proper end and have him found not guilty, than have this travesty of loopholing.